When I was a boy growing up in the 60s there was a logic that most people accepted that's simply not discussed anymore and I can't help feeling that its because the politicians and their greedy string pullers have worked industriously to take it off the discussion list.  The logic went like this:-

The wealthier you are the more tax you should pay (esp if your wealth is inherited) because (i) you receive a far greater benefit from the society that makes your wealth possible and applying the basic principles of user pays, you owe more; (ii) The sacrifices that the wealthy few make to protect and serve the community from which they get their wealth is infinitesimal compared to the sacrifices made on a daily basis by the vastly more numerous majority in the community; and (iii) the wealthy have far more to lose then the rest of us if society collapsed. 

I say this logic was commonly discussed when I was a boy but in truth its been around for millennia and seems only to have disappeared from the popular discourse in the last 30 years or so.  I think its time it started to be openly discussed again.      

do you own your own home? your own car.. do you have superannuation..? do you have money in the bank...lovely if you have any of those..

we had not one of those when I was growing up..my mum and dad didnt leave me a thing..nup not even a brass farthing as the old saying went..but I will certainly be leaving my kids my home and car and any money that might be left in the bank..a bit more than I ever got... I worked for it. along with my husband we went without to pay for every day things
didnt occur to us to say how about the so called RICH paying more so I can pay less...today more people own their own homes than ever before...are they rich????????.. should they be penalised because they put their money into their homes and not down the pub....I dont know any more....in my mums day no one owned their own homes it was unheard of...

you sound as if you resent anyone that had frugal parents who invested their money wisely..

cods wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 6:00pm:

you sound as if you resent anyone that had frugal parents who invested their money wisely..

Just a typical lefty, 'everyone owes me mentality'.


They just whinge and whinge, doing frig all for themselves, like little chldren demanding more cake.


Friggen pathetic

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 5:44pm:

When I was a boy growing up in the 60s there was a logic that most people accepted that's simply not discussed anymore and I can't help feeling that its because the politicians and their greedy string pullers have worked industriously to take it off the discussion list.  The logic went like this:- The wealthier you are the more tax you should pay (esp if your wealth is inherited) because (i) you receive a far greater benefit from the society that makes your wealth possible and applying the basic principles of user pays, you owe more; (ii) The sacrifices that the wealthy few make to protect and serve the community from which they get their wealth is infinitesimal compared to the sacrifices made on a daily basis by the vastly more numerous majority in the community; and (iii) the wealthy have far more to lose then the rest of us if society collapsed.  I say this logic was commonly discussed when I was a boy but in truth its been around for millennia and seems only to have disappeared from the popular discourse in the last 30 years or so.  I think its time it started to be openly discussed again.

Ive heard this crap from the usual loser group.  I listened to one welfare dependent loser complain that I could afford to buy a new care and he couldn't.  I paid 20 times his tax on 4 times his sslary...not enough????

As usual leftard hate for anybody who is successful through hard work, either in their own business, at their career, in their professional life, or even in their personal life.

I smacking detest that mentality!

cods wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 6:00pm:

do you own your own home? your own car.. do you have superannuation..? do you have money in the bank...lovely if you have any of those.. we had not one of those when I was growing up..my mum and dad didnt leave me a thing..nup not even a brass farthing as the old saying went..but I will certainly be leaving my kids my home and car and any money that might be left in the bank..a bit more than I ever got... I worked for it. along with my husband we went without to pay for every day things didnt occur to us to say how about the so called RICH paying more so I can pay less...today more people own their own homes than ever before...are they rich????????.. should they be penalised because they put their money into their homes and not down the pub....I dont know any more....in my mums day no one owned their own homes it was unheard of... you sound as if you resent anyone that had frugal parents who invested their money wisely..

OK, is there any chance that if we have this discussion you might do away with the hysterical rant and exaggerated accusations about me wanting to "penalising you for putting money in your home" and how "I must hate frugal parents" and deal with the points that were actually made in the OP. 

You know of course that at the moment we have a progressive taxation system precisely because the belief has been up till now that those who have done better out of the social arrangements should be prepared to put that little bit more back in.  Are you opposed to that completely or not completely and if so why. Having said that there are many in much higher economic brackets then us who pay less and sometimes not even any tax at all. Does that trouble you or not and if so why. Now as I say you can go off hysterically and avoid a rational discussion or we could actually teach each other about why we believe the different things we believe. 

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

cods wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 6:00pm: you sound as if you resent anyone that had frugal parents who invested their money wisely.. Just a typical lefty, 'everyone owes me mentality'. They just whinge and whinge, doing frig all for themselves, like little chldren demanding more cake. Friggen pathetic

If you deal with the points made in the OP I will be most pleased to have a discussion with you

cods wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 6:00pm:

do you own your own home? your own car.. do you have superannuation..? do you have money in the bank...lovely if you have any of those.. we had not one of those when I was growing up..my mum and dad didnt leave me a thing..nup not even a brass farthing as the old saying went..but I will certainly be leaving my kids my home and car and any money that might be left in the bank..a bit more than I ever got... I worked for it. along with my husband we went without to pay for every day things didnt occur to us to say how about the so called RICH paying more so I can pay less...today more people own their own homes than ever before...are they rich????????.. should they be penalised because they put their money into their homes and not down the pub....I dont know any more....in my mums day no one owned their own homes it was unheard of... you sound as if you resent anyone that had frugal parents who invested their money wisely..

cods - and you are a better person for .........."....will certainly be leaving my kids my home and car and any money that might be left in the bank..a bit more than I ever got... I worked for it. along with my husband we went without to pay for every day things .........."

And that's how it has always worked.
Earn more than you spend and life is good.
Spend more than you earn, and you are under pressure.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 6:35pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 5:44pm: When I was a boy growing up in the 60s there was a logic that most people accepted that's simply not discussed anymore and I can't help feeling that its because the politicians and their greedy string pullers have worked industriously to take it off the discussion list.  The logic went like this:- The wealthier you are the more tax you should pay (esp if your wealth is inherited) because (i) you receive a far greater benefit from the society that makes your wealth possible and applying the basic principles of user pays, you owe more; (ii) The sacrifices that the wealthy few make to protect and serve the community from which they get their wealth is infinitesimal compared to the sacrifices made on a daily basis by the vastly more numerous majority in the community; and (iii) the wealthy have far more to lose then the rest of us if society collapsed.  I say this logic was commonly discussed when I was a boy but in truth its been around for millennia and seems only to have disappeared from the popular discourse in the last 30 years or so.  I think its time it started to be openly discussed again.       Ive heard this crap from the usual loser group.  I listened to one welfare dependent loser complain that I could afford to buy a new care and he couldn't.  I paid 20 times his tax on 4 times his sslary...not enough????

Yes, yes non of which addresses any of the propositions set out in the op. You might want to give that a try if you have an interest in a real discussion on this issue. 

Quote:

The Rich Owe Us And Should Pay Their Taxes

Your obviously not a conservative politician.

George_Orhell wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 7:37pm:

As usual leftard hate for anybody who is successful through hard work, either in their own business, at their career, in their professional life, or even in their personal life. I smacking detest that mentality!

Ahh yes you work harder therefor you deserve more. Ask the guy next to you and he'll say the same thing. Yep the age of entitlement is certainly not over.    

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 5:44pm:

When I was a boy growing up in the 60s there was a logic that most people accepted that's simply not discussed anymore and I can't help feeling that its because the politicians and their greedy string pullers have worked industriously to take it off the discussion list.  The logic went like this:- The wealthier you are the more tax you should pay (esp if your wealth is inherited) because (i) you receive a far greater benefit from the society that makes your wealth possible and applying the basic principles of user pays, you owe more; (ii) The sacrifices that the wealthy few make to protect and serve the community from which they get their wealth is infinitesimal compared to the sacrifices made on a daily basis by the vastly more numerous majority in the community; and (iii) the wealthy have far more to lose then the rest of us if society collapsed.  I say this logic was commonly discussed when I was a boy but in truth its been around for millennia and seems only to have disappeared from the popular discourse in the last 30 years or so.  I think its time it started to be openly discussed again.

Taxing the income of worker at 30%, but taxing the income of the rich at 90%, is inequitable.

It is akin to lawful stealing, imo.

It is TAKING more of what the wealthy have, because they have it.

It is socialism and communism.



Steal from the wealthy [i.e. steal from those who have wealth because they are resourceful and industrious], and distribute those resources and wealth [created by others], to the poor - because of their need.


And it is the exact same system that Sharia promotes and enforces.

Stealing with threats....

Christians in the Caliphate: The Islamic State (Part 4)              goto 6m 40s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGQwTOsh__0


Such a system, OF STEALING THE WEALTH OF OTHERS, has no real long-term beneficial effect in a society.

It produces dependency, and a corrupt governance authority.








+++


God is a capitalist.

Proof of that fact is 'littered' throughout the OT bible, and is revealed even in many of the parables of Jesus.


n.b.
Jesus DID NOT say;

"Steal from the wealthy, and give to the poor."


Matthew 19:21
Jesus said........go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.iGod does encourage us all, to be kind to the poor,         and to be generous to those who are worse off than ourselves.

But the Matthew 25:14 - 30 parable suggests, very directly, that God is not a socialist.

And the parables which Jesus told, suggest, that God does not hold with socialist ideals [which is in fact thievery, as a means 'to help the poor'].




Is God a capitalist ?

Matthew 25:24
......he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:



Do Jesus parables suggest that God is a capitalist ?

Matthew 21:33
Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
34  And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it......





p.s.
Yadda is not a wealthy person.
I am in a low tax bracket.

I think the point of this Topic is how Australia was once a thriving Nation that dispensed the 'Wealth' amongst the MANY, rather than the 'few' - as is the case in many 'Capitalist' nations.

We were almost akin to Communism, but more of a success.

Alas, we now live in an era where there are those that 'exploit' this system.
The Aussie Battler will gratefully accept the 'Social Security' safety net and make the most of it, while the Houso will just ride it into the dirt.
The Aussie Achiever would find himself more 'socially' rewarded.

I've seen experienced Rich who fall into it and those who 'earn' it. There is really no 'Black or White' to this as there are so many variations, let alone much like there are States - to this Nation.

Personally though, I do believe that there is a 'fear' emerging through 'Political' Australia that the most richest and powerful Australian will NOT be a Political figurehead.
A 'Tall Poppy' problem if ever there was one.  ;)

Not everyone in low to middle income, or even welfare, for that matter, is in the situation because they're too lazy to do something with their life. Sometimes they don't have a choice -- how would you feel if your well paying job was cut because someone above you decided, "I made 2 million dollars less than I did the year previously, therefore I need to cut some jobs."? (Example).
This puts you into a situation where you will run out of money very quickly, especially if you are paying off a loan or credit card.
If we're talking about despising mentalities here, the "You're not rich therefore you are a lazy/stupid welfare leech with an entitlement complex" is also a disgusting assumption. I'm not saying there aren't people out there who are like that, because there definitely is.
This is the same attitude as "all muslims are terrorists" or "all catholics are pedophiles."
Sorry, this has nothing to do with the topic but I just thought I'd put this out there. Carry on.

For those of you interested in discussing this rationally, you might be interested to know that even the multi multi billionair Warren Buffett argues for a progressive taxation system on the grounds that prosperous Americans owe part of their success to other citizens. Have a listen to what he has to say in an interview on CNN Money


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6tBmaUNY0E

George_Orhell wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 7:37pm:

As usual leftard hate for anybody who is successful through hard work, either in their own business, at their career, in their professional life, or even in their personal life. I smacking detest that mentality!

You don't support those who are successful through birth right or just dumb luck and you truly believe that people who are a success should not have to pay their share of taxes ?

Acts 5 Yadda

Setanta wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 10:01pm:

Acts 5 Yadda

Yes.

Within the body of the church [the community of believers], we are encouraged to share everything, with those in need.


QUESTION;
Is Australia today, a 'Christian nation' ?

Do Australians today, follow Christian tenets ?





"If it feels good, do it!"    ....is the tenet that all Australians today, follow.

Isn't it ?

Yadda wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 10:12pm:

Setanta wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 10:01pm: Acts 5 Yadda Yes. Within the body of the church [the community of believers], we are encouraged to share everything, with those in need. QUESTION; Is Australia today, a 'Christian nation' ? Do Australians today, follow Christian tenets ? "If it feels good, do it!"    ....is the tenet that all Australians today, follow. Isn't it ?

Another Aussie tenet was help the fellow man, but that's gone down the tube, not without reason of course. Too many people out there who take advantage and cannot be trusted, which leads people to serve the self, so to speak. It is like a plague of the mind, it festers and infects many at a fast rate.

I think a lot of these people, especially those in the political spectrum, just pretend to be Christians to give the common people an idea of a do-gooder. It's like a mask.

Yadda wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 10:12pm:

Setanta wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 10:01pm: Acts 5 Yadda Yes. Within the body of the church [the community of believers], we are encouraged to share everything, with those in need. QUESTION; Is Australia today, a 'Christian nation' ? Do Australians today, follow Christian tenets ? "If it feels good, do it!"    ....is the tenet that all Australians today, follow. Isn't it ?

Would you support a 100% tax, on pain of death, if we are?

Edit: Isn't you guys who say Au is a Christian nation?

Dnarever wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 9:16pm:

Quote: The Rich Owe Us And Should Pay Their Taxes Your obviously not a conservative politician.

Well, yes, I think you could say that ;) :)

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 10:20pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 9:16pm: Quote: The Rich Owe Us And Should Pay Their Taxes Your obviously not a conservative politician. Well, yes, I think you could say that ;) :)

I would say "Your[sic] obviously not a conservative politician." The more pay they vote themselves the further up the food chain they feel they are.

Freedumb wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 10:17pm:

Yadda wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 10:12pm: Setanta wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 10:01pm: Acts 5 Yadda Yes. Within the body of the church [the community of believers], we are encouraged to share everything, with those in need. QUESTION; Is Australia today, a 'Christian nation' ? Do Australians today, follow Christian tenets ? "If it feels good, do it!"    ....is the tenet that all Australians today, follow. Isn't it ? Another Aussie tenet was help the fellow man, but that's gone down the tube, not without reason of course. Too many people out there who take advantage and cannot be trusted, which leads people to serve the self, so to speak. It is like a plague of the mind, it festers and infects many at a fast rate. I think a lot of these people, especially those in the political spectrum, just pretend to be Christians to give the common people an idea of a do-gooder. It's like a mask.

I do donate to charities, when i feel that i can.

But i try to be very careful, who i donate to.

IMO, many large charities today seem to have a 'business model', where the charity itself, is a business [where the 'executive' pay themselves very well]!




I look for small struggling charities to support, for example, expat Aussies working to help the poor in 3rd world countries.

Freedumb wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 9:49pm:

Not everyone in low to middle income, or even welfare, for that matter, is in the situation because they're too lazy to do something with their life. Sometimes they don't have a choice -- how would you feel if your well paying job was cut because someone above you decided, "I made 2 million dollars less than I did the year previously, therefore I need to cut some jobs."? (Example). This puts you into a situation where you will run out of money very quickly, especially if you are paying off a loan or credit card. If we're talking about despising mentalities here, the "You're not rich therefore you are a lazy/stupid welfare leech with an entitlement complex" is also a disgusting assumption. I'm not saying there aren't people out there who are like that, because there definitely is. This is the same attitude as "all muslims are terrorists" or "all catholics are pedophiles." Sorry, this has nothing to do with the topic but I just thought I'd put this out there. Carry on.

Well actually Freedumb I think much of what you say is very much on point, esp the bit I have highlighted.  I think for too many years now those on the right have worked very hard to talk up how valuable they are and demean the vital contribution that the rest of us make because of course it's a way of justifying their claims for a higher proportion of the wealth we all generate.  Its a bit like the wheels of a car saying if it wasn't for us you wouldn't have a car, which of course downplays the vital importance of the other components of a car.  We need to stop letting them get away with demeaning us and our worth and understanding that if it wasn't for us they couldn't possibly achieve even 1/1000th of the level of wealth they enjoy and they need to give something back instead of increasing the level of tension in society because they believe that they are entitled to even more.  Make no mistake, the age of entitlement started with them. 

Setanta wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 10:17pm:

Yadda wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 10:12pm: Setanta wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 10:01pm: Acts 5 Yadda Yes. Within the body of the church [the community of believers], we are encouraged to share everything, with those in need. QUESTION; Is Australia today, a 'Christian nation' ? Do Australians today, follow Christian tenets ? "If it feels good, do it!"    ....is the tenet that all Australians today, follow. Isn't it ? Would you support a 100% tax, on pain of death, if we are? Edit: Isn't you guys who say Au is a Christian nation?

Yes I think I've heard them say that when its suited them in another context. BTW I think Jesus would have been disgusted at this guy thinking he was a christian.

Setanta wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 10:24pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 10:20pm: Dnarever wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 9:16pm: Quote: The Rich Owe Us And Should Pay Their Taxes Your obviously not a conservative politician. Well, yes, I think you could say that ;) :) I would say "Your[sic] obviously not a conservative politician." The more pay they vote themselves the further up the food chain they feel they are.

Yes, I couldn't quibble with that either and isn't that one of the great advantages of where we sit even though we can't vote ourselves more pay.  We can say what we mean. Almost makes one feel further up the food chain don't you think

Yadda wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 10:33pm:

I do donate to charities, when i feel that i can.

Not good enough dude! Remember the story of the old woman with a near worthless coin in the bible?

God demands you pay whether it's comfortable or not. Want me to drag out the quotes like you do? The above is one and acts 5 is another, if you want more...

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 11:01pm:

Setanta wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 10:24pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 10:20pm: Dnarever wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 9:16pm: Quote: The Rich Owe Us And Should Pay Their Taxes Your obviously not a conservative politician. Well, yes, I think you could say that ;) :) I would say "Your[sic] obviously not a conservative politician." The more pay they vote themselves the further up the food chain they feel they are. Yes, I couldn't quibble with that either and isn't that one of the great advantages of where we sit even though we can't vote ourselves more pay.  We can say what we mean. Almost makes one feel further up the food chain don't you think

Ethically at least.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 10:44pm:

BTW I think Jesus would have been disgusted at this guy thinking he was a christian.

I would have to be very like Jesus, to be a Christian.

I am sure, that i am not like Jesus.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 5:44pm:

When I was a boy growing up in the 60s there was a logic that most people accepted that's simply not discussed anymore and I can't help feeling that its because the politicians and their greedy string pullers have worked industriously to take it off the discussion list.  The logic went like this:- The wealthier you are the more tax you should pay (esp if your wealth is inherited) because (i) you receive a far greater benefit from the society that makes your wealth possible and applying the basic principles of user pays, you owe more; (ii) The sacrifices that the wealthy few make to protect and serve the community from which they get their wealth is infinitesimal compared to the sacrifices made on a daily basis by the vastly more numerous majority in the community; and (iii) the wealthy have far more to lose then the rest of us if society collapsed.  I say this logic was commonly discussed when I was a boy but in truth its been around for millennia and seems only to have disappeared from the popular discourse in the last 30 years or so.  I think its time it started to be openly discussed again.

The rich company owners already pay super high taxes at the expense of the workers & customers.

An average business pays about 40 direct & indirect taxes.
It's all money that can't go into the workers pockets & keeps them poor.

Look at a few:

payroll tax
superannuation tax
land tax
rates
GST
company tax
Fuel tax
car rego
stamp duty on insurance


the list goes on & on - only tax accountants know all of them.

A company is just a cash cow for the government.

Yadda wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 11:13pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 10:44pm: BTW I think Jesus would have been disgusted at this guy thinking he was a christian. I would have to be very like Jesus, to be a Christian. I am sure, that i am not like Jesus.

No you wouldn't, you could be a scum mass murdering, raping, pillaging scum and if you accepted Jesus as your saviour and "genuinely repented" as best your nature could do, after all we are all sinners, you would be a fine Christian, meeting all of it's tenets.

Are you like Jesus, well I'll let you decide. Believe me though, there is a lot of leeway about what you do as long as you accept him. Lucky believers, the rest of us have to take personal responsibility.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 11:18pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 5:44pm: When I was a boy growing up in the 60s there was a logic that most people accepted that's simply not discussed anymore and I can't help feeling that its because the politicians and their greedy string pullers have worked industriously to take it off the discussion list.  The logic went like this:- The wealthier you are the more tax you should pay (esp if your wealth is inherited) because (i) you receive a far greater benefit from the society that makes your wealth possible and applying the basic principles of user pays, you owe more; (ii) The sacrifices that the wealthy few make to protect and serve the community from which they get their wealth is infinitesimal compared to the sacrifices made on a daily basis by the vastly more numerous majority in the community; and (iii) the wealthy have far more to lose then the rest of us if society collapsed.  I say this logic was commonly discussed when I was a boy but in truth its been around for millennia and seems only to have disappeared from the popular discourse in the last 30 years or so.  I think its time it started to be openly discussed again.

The rich company owners already pay super high taxes at the expense of the workers & customers.

An average business pays about 40 direct & indirect taxes.
It's all money that can't go into the workers pockets & keeps them poor.

Look at a few:

payroll tax
superannuation tax
land tax
rates
GST
company tax
Fuel tax
car rego
stamp duty on insurance


the list goes on & on - only tax accountants know all of them.

A company is just a cash cow for the government.

I only steal from the 'Bad' rich.

...did I ever tell you guys that my mate Matt and I snuck into the Lodge (when living at Kirribilli) after the 3am Police Car round, snuck past the sleeping civi guards - while Paul Keating was in power?  :-?

...by coincidence, the Daily Telegraph had a photo of the sleeping guards upon its front page a few days later  ;)

Gina Winefart should pay a lot more.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 11:27pm:

Gina Winefart should pay a lot more.

Brineheart perhaps?

Setanta wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 11:33pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 11:27pm: Gina Winefart should pay a lot more. Brineheart perhaps?

This one:


http://uknowispeaksense.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/rinehart.jpg

or here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4092748-3x2-940x627.jpg

Bobby. wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 11:36pm:

Setanta wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 11:33pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 11:27pm: Gina Winefart should pay a lot more. Brineheart perhaps? This one: http://uknowispeaksense.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/rinehart.jpg or here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4092748-3x2-940x627.jpg

Ah, OK, same beastie. So many heads!

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

[quote author=cods link=1410507855/1#1 date=1410508846] you sound as if you resent anyone that had frugal parents who invested their money wisely.. [/quote Just a typical lefty, 'everyone owes me mentality'. They just whinge and whinge, doing frig all for themselves, like little chldren demanding more cake. Friggen pathetic

I have an 'owes me' mentality - revery second rate flea-brain who came  up with some magic solution to society's problems that involved ripping me off of anything owes me big time.  I've earned my way times many.... time to pay the piper.

Setanta wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 11:41pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 11:36pm: Setanta wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 11:33pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 11:27pm: Gina Winefart should pay a lot more. Brineheart perhaps? This one: http://uknowispeaksense.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/rinehart.jpg or here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4092748-3x2-940x627.jpg Ah, OK, same beastie. So many heads!

An ugly creature:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mF6dCD8n2E

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 8:50pm:

cods wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 6:00pm: do you own your own home? your own car.. do you have superannuation..? do you have money in the bank...lovely if you have any of those.. we had not one of those when I was growing up..my mum and dad didnt leave me a thing..nup not even a brass farthing as the old saying went..but I will certainly be leaving my kids my home and car and any money that might be left in the bank..a bit more than I ever got... I worked for it. along with my husband we went without to pay for every day things didnt occur to us to say how about the so called RICH paying more so I can pay less...today more people own their own homes than ever before...are they rich????????.. should they be penalised because they put their money into their homes and not down the pub....I dont know any more....in my mums day no one owned their own homes it was unheard of... you sound as if you resent anyone that had frugal parents who invested their money wisely.. OK, is there any chance that if we have this discussion you might do away with the hysterical rant and exaggerated accusations about me wanting to "penalising you for putting money in your home" and how "I must hate frugal parents" and deal with the points that were actually made in the OP.  You know of course that at the moment we have a progressive taxation system precisely because the belief has been up till now that those who have done better out of the social arrangements should be prepared to put that little bit more back in.  Are you opposed to that completely or not completely and if so why. Having said that there are many in much higher economic brackets then us who pay less and sometimes not even any tax at all. Does that trouble you or not and if so why. Now as I say you can go off hysterically and avoid a rational discussion or we could actually teach each other about why we believe the different things we believe.

that is drivel.  do you care to explain how any earner avoids paying tax?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 9:54pm:

For those of you interested in discussing this rationally, you might be interested to know that even the multi multi billionair Warren Buffett argues for a progressive taxation system on the grounds that prosperous Americans owe part of their success to other citizens. Have a listen to what he has to say in an interview on CNN Money http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6tBmaUNY0E

what on earth are you complaining about???  we already have a strongly progressive taxation system. so what is your complaint?

Dnarever wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 9:57pm:

George_Orhell wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 7:37pm: As usual leftard hate for anybody who is successful through hard work, either in their own business, at their career, in their professional life, or even in their personal life. I smacking detest that mentality! You don't support those who are successful through birth right or just dumb luck and you truly believe that people who are a success should not have to pay their share of taxes ?

It's only unsuccessful people like you who show that mentality. What gives you the right to say they don't "pay their share of taxes". I would imagine if you lived twenty lifetimes you wouldn't pay as much tax as some successful people pay.

George_Orhell wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 9:21am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 9:57pm: George_Orhell wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 7:37pm: As usual leftard hate for anybody who is successful through hard work, either in their own business, at their career, in their professional life, or even in their personal life. I smacking detest that mentality! You don't support those who are successful through birth right or just dumb luck and you truly believe that people who are a success should not have to pay their share of taxes ? It's only unsuccessful people like you who show that mentality. What gives you the right to say they don't "pay their share of taxes". I would imagine if you lived twenty lifetimes you wouldn't pay as much tax as some successful people pay.

the vast majority of people pay their taxes without complaint.  there are very few opportunities for people to minimise tax and even then, not by very much.  the higher earners pay a much larger amount in taxes.  So I really don't get what the problem is here.  Ive not seen anyone on here promote flat tax rates.  high income earners do however get sick of being abused when they are already pay 20-50 times as much tax as a minimum wage earner AND gets no govt beneifts.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 9:25am:

George_Orhell wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 9:21am: Dnarever wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 9:57pm: George_Orhell wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 7:37pm: As usual leftard hate for anybody who is successful through hard work, either in their own business, at their career, in their professional life, or even in their personal life. I smacking detest that mentality! You don't support those who are successful through birth right or just dumb luck and you truly believe that people who are a success should not have to pay their share of taxes ? It's only unsuccessful people like you who show that mentality. What gives you the right to say they don't "pay their share of taxes". I would imagine if you lived twenty lifetimes you wouldn't pay as much tax as some successful people pay. the vast majority of people pay their taxes without complaint.  there are very few opportunities for people to minimise tax and even then, not by very much.  the higher earners pay a much larger amount in taxes.  So I really don't get what the problem is here.  Ive not seen anyone on here promote flat tax rates.  high income earners do however get sick of being abused when they are already pay 20-50 times as much tax as a minimum wage earner AND gets no govt beneifts.

Longweekend gets a boner for Gina Winefart.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 9:28am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 9:25am: George_Orhell wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 9:21am: Dnarever wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 9:57pm: George_Orhell wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 7:37pm: As usual leftard hate for anybody who is successful through hard work, either in their own business, at their career, in their professional life, or even in their personal life. I smacking detest that mentality! You don't support those who are successful through birth right or just dumb luck and you truly believe that people who are a success should not have to pay their share of taxes ? It's only unsuccessful people like you who show that mentality. What gives you the right to say they don't "pay their share of taxes". I would imagine if you lived twenty lifetimes you wouldn't pay as much tax as some successful people pay. the vast majority of people pay their taxes without complaint.  there are very few opportunities for people to minimise tax and even then, not by very much.  the higher earners pay a much larger amount in taxes.  So I really don't get what the problem is here.  Ive not seen anyone on here promote flat tax rates.  high income earners do however get sick of being abused when they are already pay 20-50 times as much tax as a minimum wage earner AND gets no govt beneifts. Longweekend gets a boner for Gina Winefart.

it would be nice to actually reply to my post instead of this drivel.  and I think we can safely say that NO ONE get s boner for Gina. She makes Christine Milne look sexy and we aren't even really sure she is female!

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 8:50pm:

cods wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 6:00pm: do you own your own home? your own car.. do you have superannuation..? do you have money in the bank...lovely if you have any of those.. we had not one of those when I was growing up..my mum and dad didnt leave me a thing..nup not even a brass farthing as the old saying went..but I will certainly be leaving my kids my home and car and any money that might be left in the bank..a bit more than I ever got... I worked for it. along with my husband we went without to pay for every day things didnt occur to us to say how about the so called RICH paying more so I can pay less...today more people own their own homes than ever before...are they rich????????.. should they be penalised because they put their money into their homes and not down the pub....I dont know any more....in my mums day no one owned their own homes it was unheard of... you sound as if you resent anyone that had frugal parents who invested their money wisely.. OK, is there any chance that if we have this discussion you might do away with the hysterical rant and exaggerated accusations about me wanting to "penalising you for putting money in your home" and how "I must hate frugal parents" and deal with the points that were actually made in the OP.  You know of course that at the moment we have a progressive taxation system precisely because the belief has been up till now that those who have done better out of the social arrangements should be prepared to put that little bit more back in.  Are you opposed to that completely or not completely and if so why. Having said that there are many in much higher economic brackets then us who pay less and sometimes not even any tax at all. Does that trouble you or not and if so why. Now as I say you can go off hysterically and avoid a rational discussion or we could actually teach each other about why we believe the different things we believe.

I think you will find that those who have more... tend to spend more .. for instance a larger bigger posher home...in a well off position...

this by its very existence costs a hell of a lot than Mr average would pay.. in the likes of GST/land tax/stamp duty/rates etc etc....

dont forget when you buy a house.. they stamp a piece of paper...the size of the house does not affect the size of the stamp.... so big house little house..work involved the same...yet because the house is bigger therefore costs more they pay a hell of a lot more stamp duty.....

so they are paying more taxes....they are the ones that buy the luxury goods.. like the BMWs..and yachts all costing hell of a lot more in GST...

dont be jealous of someone having a little bit more money....


I was asking you a few questions... as you seem to put all RICH people in the same bracket.

I was just trying to determine who was classed as rich in your little rant. that was all.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 9:19am:

that is drivel.  do you care to explain how any earner avoids paying tax?

What follows is an article from the SMH in May 2014 And its just the tip of the iceburg.  Google Australia opened new offices in Darling Harbour in mid 2009 and derives revenue of 2 billion but its total tax expense was $466,802. Similar story with Apple. And none of this is to mention the corporate welfare they recieve and Taxpayer $$$ from dirty deals.  Remember $880Million payed out to Abbotts mate Murdoch straight after Abbott won the election.  OH yes it was all above board I'm sure. 

"Budget pain? Not for millionaires who pay no tax

Date
    May 13, 2014 Peter Martin
Economics Editor, The Age

    Federal budget 2014: full coverage
   
“Pain all round” will be the rallying cry of the night. Joe Hockey says his first budget - tonight - will hit everyone from high earners to politicians to Australians too poor to pay to see the doctor. All of us will have to “contribute budget repair”.

Except that we won’t.

The latest tax statistics show 75 ultra-high-earning Australians paid no tax at all in 2011-12. Zero. Zip.
Advertisement

Each earned more than $1 million from investments or wages. Between them they made $195 million, an average of $2.6 million each.

The fortunate 75 paid no income tax, no Medicare levy and no Medicare surcharge, even though 60 of them had private health insurance.

The reason? They managed to cut their combined taxable incomes to $82. That’s right, $1.10 each.

Cutting taxable income that far doesn’t come cheap.

Forty-five of the uber millionaires claimed a total of $64.4 million for the “cost of managing their tax affairs”. That’s a staggering $1.4 million each. (As a point of comparison an entry-level H&R Block consultation costs $49.)

At face value the figures suggest these super-high earners were prepared to spend an unlikely half of their incomes on tax advice. A more likely explanation is that they received far greater incomes than they reported and spent only a portion on tax advice.

It wasn’t wasted.

Animation: Rocco Fazzari

Ten of the millionaires claimed between them $1.3 million in work-related deductions, for things such as car expenses and clothing. Ten claimed a total of $5 million for donations and gifts, a category that includes political as well as charitable donations.

And they ran loss-making businesses.

The 30 who were in business reported total business income of $121 million offset by expenses of $122 million. Those who ran farms carried over $61.5 million in earlier tax losses and lost an extra $3 million in 2011-12.

When it came to investing they bought up big on shares that paid so-called franking credits on which they could claim tax deductions and stayed away from those that did not. They received $18.7 million in franked dividends in 2011-12, and only $565,000 in dividends that were unfranked.

On Tuesday night these  75 will escape the deficit reduction levy applying to taxable incomes of more than $180,000. Their taxable incomes are closer to nil than $180,000 even though they are well off enough to afford outrageously priced tax advice. And they’ll almost certainly escape the extra charge for bulk-billed visits to the doctor. About the only thing they won’t escape is higher petrol prices, although it should be noted that five of them claim work-related car expenses, so they might be able pass those costs on to the Tax Office.

It isn’t only millionaires. Tax Office figures show there are 1095 Australians earning in excess of $150,000 who pay no tax. Half of them sought tax advice and shelled out an impressive total of $98 million, which works out to $223,000 each. Their biggest lurk is negative gearing. Most lose large sums on properties they rent out in order to destroy their taxable incomes, hoping to make it up later when they sell the properties for a lightly taxed profit."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/budget-pain-not-for-millionaires-who-pay-no-tax-20140512-zr9o3.html#ixzz3D9JybNts

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 9:35am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 9:28am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 9:25am: George_Orhell wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 9:21am: Dnarever wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 9:57pm: George_Orhell wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 7:37pm: As usual leftard hate for anybody who is successful through hard work, either in their own business, at their career, in their professional life, or even in their personal life. I smacking detest that mentality! You don't support those who are successful through birth right or just dumb luck and you truly believe that people who are a success should not have to pay their share of taxes ? It's only unsuccessful people like you who show that mentality. What gives you the right to say they don't "pay their share of taxes". I would imagine if you lived twenty lifetimes you wouldn't pay as much tax as some successful people pay. the vast majority of people pay their taxes without complaint.  there are very few opportunities for people to minimise tax and even then, not by very much.  the higher earners pay a much larger amount in taxes.  So I really don't get what the problem is here.  Ive not seen anyone on here promote flat tax rates.  high income earners do however get sick of being abused when they are already pay 20-50 times as much tax as a minimum wage earner AND gets no govt beneifts. Longweekend gets a boner for Gina Winefart. it would be nice to actually reply to my post instead of this drivel.  and I think we can safely say that NO ONE get s boner for Gina. She makes Christine Milne look sexy and we aren't even really sure she is female!

I dunno Longy -
I think she meets your standards:


http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4092748-3x2-940x627.jpg

cods wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 9:58am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 8:50pm: cods wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 6:00pm: do you own your own home? your own car.. do you have superannuation..? do you have money in the bank...lovely if you have any of those.. we had not one of those when I was growing up..my mum and dad didnt leave me a thing..nup not even a brass farthing as the old saying went..but I will certainly be leaving my kids my home and car and any money that might be left in the bank..a bit more than I ever got... I worked for it. along with my husband we went without to pay for every day things didnt occur to us to say how about the so called RICH paying more so I can pay less...today more people own their own homes than ever before...are they rich????????.. should they be penalised because they put their money into their homes and not down the pub....I dont know any more....in my mums day no one owned their own homes it was unheard of... you sound as if you resent anyone that had frugal parents who invested their money wisely.. OK, is there any chance that if we have this discussion you might do away with the hysterical rant and exaggerated accusations about me wanting to "penalising you for putting money in your home" and how "I must hate frugal parents" and deal with the points that were actually made in the OP.  You know of course that at the moment we have a progressive taxation system precisely because the belief has been up till now that those who have done better out of the social arrangements should be prepared to put that little bit more back in.  Are you opposed to that completely or not completely and if so why. Having said that there are many in much higher economic brackets then us who pay less and sometimes not even any tax at all. Does that trouble you or not and if so why. Now as I say you can go off hysterically and avoid a rational discussion or we could actually teach each other about why we believe the different things we believe.  I think you will find that those who have more... tend to spend more .. for instance a larger bigger posher home...in a well off position... this by its very existence costs a hell of a lot than Mr average would pay.. in the likes of GST/land tax/stamp duty/rates etc etc.... dont forget when you buy a house.. they stamp a piece of paper...the size of the house does not affect the size of the stamp.... so big house little house..work involved the same...yet because the house is bigger therefore costs more they pay a hell of a lot more stamp duty..... so they are paying more taxes....they are the ones that buy the luxury goods.. like the BMWs..and yachts all costing hell of a lot more in GST... dont be jealous of someone having a little bit more money.... I was asking you a few questions... as you seem to put all RICH people in the same bracket. I was just trying to determine who was classed as rich in your little rant. that was all.

Actually, I think you will find (to use your words) that most economists (if not all) and Mr Warren Buffett (watch the interview) are of the view that one person with a lot of money tends to spend far less then a lot of people with the same amount of money. It really is pretty obvious when you think about it.  The average billionair may pay 10 times more for, lets say, 10 pairs of jeans he buys each year compared to 2 pairs of jeans the average person buys each year. But when you consider that there are 22 million of us compared to what, 20 of them, who spends the most in your opinion.  Go on, take a guess. 

As to who is rich, the interview with Warren Buffet discusses this also.  And its basically that you have a progressive system of taxation that says the more welth benefit you receive from the society the more tax you should pay so that it goes up in increments.  IMO the average Australian pays enough tax but the welthier Australians do not pay enough and they think they are entitled to pay less tax because they put absolutely no value on the benefit they receive from the society that has made their wonderful standard of living possible. If they focused on the true value that they get from being in a society where everyone does everything for them for a pittance I think they would be prepared to pay more and we might defuse a lot of unnecessary tension that has built in this community because these people think they are entitled to even more. 

Do you agree with the 3 propositions set out in the OP, yes or no and why?   

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 9:35am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 9:28am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 9:25am: George_Orhell wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 9:21am: Dnarever wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 9:57pm: George_Orhell wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 7:37pm: As usual leftard hate for anybody who is successful through hard work, either in their own business, at their career, in their professional life, or even in their personal life. I smacking detest that mentality! You don't support those who are successful through birth right or just dumb luck and you truly believe that people who are a success should not have to pay their share of taxes ? It's only unsuccessful people like you who show that mentality. What gives you the right to say they don't "pay their share of taxes". I would imagine if you lived twenty lifetimes you wouldn't pay as much tax as some successful people pay. the vast majority of people pay their taxes without complaint.  there are very few opportunities for people to minimise tax and even then, not by very much.  the higher earners pay a much larger amount in taxes.  So I really don't get what the problem is here.  Ive not seen anyone on here promote flat tax rates.  high income earners do however get sick of being abused when they are already pay 20-50 times as much tax as a minimum wage earner AND gets no govt beneifts. Longweekend gets a boner for Gina Winefart. it would be nice to actually reply to my post instead of this drivel.  and I think we can safely say that NO ONE get s boner for Gina. She makes Christine Milne look sexy and we aren't even really sure she is female!

LongLiar, the make up the facts as you go King

Maybe Lostweekend58 is the reincarnation of Lang Hancock.

The tax laws are always framed to allow latitude to the rich. In the USA former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney paid 11% tax on earnings of $10 million and Warren Buffet claimed his secretary paid higher rate of tax than he did.

It is no secret that the rich don't pay their fair share.

Consider the enormous financial advantages that banks get from their privileged position in our society, advantages that wouldnt even be remotly possible were it not for society and then ask yourself Why shouldn't banks pay a super profits tax?

What follows is a 2011 article in the SMH

March 5, 2011

Poll: Should the banks pay a super profits tax?

Yes

    72%
No

    28%

Total votes: 516.

Poll closed 8 Mar, 2011

Disclaimer:

These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate.

THE COMMENTATOR: RICHARD DENNISS

Last year Australia's banks made more than $1000 in profit from every man, woman and child in the country. In fact, the underlying profits of the big four banks account for nearly $3 out of every $100 earned in Australia. There can be no doubt that the banks make super profits, and there can be no doubt that we need a banking super profits tax.

But it is not just the size of the bank profits that justifies a special tax: the unique source of their market power must also be considered.

First, in a modern economy it is virtually impossible to avoid bank fees and charges. Centrelink and most employers insist on making electronic payments into bank accounts. While a person who believes restaurants are overpriced can choose to cook at home, customers who believe bank fees are too high can no longer choose to be paid in cash. Not only do the banks have a monopoly over the electronic payments system but we are forced to use that system. Banking has become an essential service and needs to be regulated accordingly.

Second, Australian taxpayers provide explicit guarantees to cover bank deposits. And as we have seen overseas, there is also the implicit guarantee that banks that are ''too big to fail'' will be propped up by governments. It is only fair that if taxpayers face the costs of any catastrophic losses then they should receive a share of the enormous profits.

Finally, the banks have told us again and again that it is pointless to try to regulate their excessive fees and their high interest rate margins. If we try to clamp down in one area, they tell us, they will simply increase their fees and charges somewhere else. If that is indeed the case and we can do nothing to prevent these excess profits, then the least we should do is tax some of the excess profit away.

The banks' final argument is that is what is good for them is good for us. The more profits they make and the higher their share prices the better off we all are, because we all have superannuation. By that argument, the dearer our petrol, the more expensive our groceries and the higher our mobile phone bill, the better off we all are.

Dr Richard Denniss is executive director of the Australia Institute.

THE ACADEMIC: ROSS BUCKLEY

The four biggest US banks represent 34 per cent of their market. The top five French banks represent 50 per cent of that market. Yet our big four account for a staggering 92 per cent of our market.

During the global financial crisis, our big banks acquired St George, BankWest, Aussie Home Loans, Wizard, Challenger Financial, RAMS and many smaller firms.

Financial uncertainty also saw many customers move to a big bank.

This concentration confers two huge benefits on the big banks. The first is the pricing opportunities. Less competition means super profits. Bank profits are almost 3 per cent of GDP. That's right: every time you spend $100 on anything, three dollars end up as profits of a bank.

The second benefit is that capital markets know Australia could not now afford to let a big bank fail.

The explicit guarantee introduced in 2008, for which the banks paid a hefty premium, was phased out last year. However, an implicit guarantee remains, and we give it to the banks free. As a result, Australia's big banks, notwithstanding what they say, enjoy distinctly lower borrowing costs abroad because the Australian government assures their solvency.

Just before Christmas the federal government announced that its guarantee of bank deposits was to be permanent, not phased out this year as planned. This was yet another of the free gifts we give our banks.

Our tax system is progressive: high earners pay higher taxes. Company tax rates are flat, because companies are more likely to move if taxed heavily.

Yet our banks benefit enormously from being here.

They enjoy an implicit sovereign guarantee of their solvency that is lowering their borrowing costs abroad and yet pay nothing for it. They enjoy a low-competition environment and the resulting massive profits.

Such government largesse is unavailable abroad. France, Germany, Britain and US are all imposing sizeable levies on their banks to ensure the sector can bail itself out come the next crisis, and to discourage overly risky behaviour.

Australia is out of step internationally by giving

our banks such gloriously generous benefits, and not imposing sector-specific taxes in return.

The main argument for an extra tax on mining companies is because of the bounty nature has bestowed on them.

It is time for an extra tax on banks because of the bounty the Australian government, at our expense, is bestowing upon them.

Ross Buckley is professor of international finance law at the University of NSW.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/should-banks-pay-a-super-profits-tax-20110305-1bih1.html#ixzz3D9gE

Yes -

tax the banks & the mining companies

instead of punishing the unemployed & the most disadvantaged people.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 10:14am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 9:19am: that is drivel.  do you care to explain how any earner avoids paying tax? What follows is an article from the SMH in May 2014 And its just the tip of the iceburg.  Google Australia opened new offices in Darling Harbour in mid 2009 and derives revenue of 2 billion but its total tax expense was $466,802. Similar story with Apple. And none of this is to mention the corporate welfare they recieve and Taxpayer $$$ from dirty deals.  Remember $880Million payed out to Abbotts mate Murdoch straight after Abbott won the election.  OH yes it was all above board I'm sure.  "Budget pain? Not for millionaires who pay no tax Date     May 13, 2014 Peter Martin Economics Editor, The Age     Federal budget 2014: full coverage     “Pain all round” will be the rallying cry of the night. Joe Hockey says his first budget - tonight - will hit everyone from high earners to politicians to Australians too poor to pay to see the doctor. All of us will have to “contribute budget repair”. Except that we won’t. The latest tax statistics show 75 ultra-high-earning Australians paid no tax at all in 2011-12. Zero. Zip. Advertisement Each earned more than $1 million from investments or wages. Between them they made $195 million, an average of $2.6 million each. The fortunate 75 paid no income tax, no Medicare levy and no Medicare surcharge, even though 60 of them had private health insurance. The reason? They managed to cut their combined taxable incomes to $82. That’s right, $1.10 each. Cutting taxable income that far doesn’t come cheap. Forty-five of the uber millionaires claimed a total of $64.4 million for the “cost of managing their tax affairs”. That’s a staggering $1.4 million each. (As a point of comparison an entry-level H&R Block consultation costs $49.) At face value the figures suggest these super-high earners were prepared to spend an unlikely half of their incomes on tax advice. A more likely explanation is that they received far greater incomes than they reported and spent only a portion on tax advice. It wasn’t wasted. Animation: Rocco Fazzari Ten of the millionaires claimed between them $1.3 million in work-related deductions, for things such as car expenses and clothing. Ten claimed a total of $5 million for donations and gifts, a category that includes political as well as charitable donations. And they ran loss-making businesses. The 30 who were in business reported total business income of $121 million offset by expenses of $122 million. Those who ran farms carried over $61.5 million in earlier tax losses and lost an extra $3 million in 2011-12. When it came to investing they bought up big on shares that paid so-called franking credits on which they could claim tax deductions and stayed away from those that did not. They received $18.7 million in franked dividends in 2011-12, and only $565,000 in dividends that were unfranked. On Tuesday night these  75 will escape the deficit reduction levy applying to taxable incomes of more than $180,000. Their taxable incomes are closer to nil than $180,000 even though they are well off enough to afford outrageously priced tax advice. And they’ll almost certainly escape the extra charge for bulk-billed visits to the doctor. About the only thing they won’t escape is higher petrol prices, although it should be noted that five of them claim work-related car expenses, so they might be able pass those costs on to the Tax Office. It isn’t only millionaires. Tax Office figures show there are 1095 Australians earning in excess of $150,000 who pay no tax. Half of them sought tax advice and shelled out an impressive total of $98 million, which works out to $223,000 each. Their biggest lurk is negative gearing. Most lose large sums on properties they rent out in order to destroy their taxable incomes, hoping to make it up later when they sell the properties for a lightly taxed profit." Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/budget-pain-not-for-millionaires-who-pay-no-tax-20140512-zr9o3.html#ixzz3D9JybNts

there are 15million tax payers in Australia.  do you think that whinging about 75 of them somehow means anything?  and in NONE of these cases was the tax minimisation illegal.  how about concentrating on the vast, vast majority of people who pay all their tax and at huge rates compared to average-or-below earners.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 10:46am:

cods wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 9:58am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 8:50pm: cods wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 6:00pm: do you own your own home? your own car.. do you have superannuation..? do you have money in the bank...lovely if you have any of those.. we had not one of those when I was growing up..my mum and dad didnt leave me a thing..nup not even a brass farthing as the old saying went..but I will certainly be leaving my kids my home and car and any money that might be left in the bank..a bit more than I ever got... I worked for it. along with my husband we went without to pay for every day things didnt occur to us to say how about the so called RICH paying more so I can pay less...today more people own their own homes than ever before...are they rich????????.. should they be penalised because they put their money into their homes and not down the pub....I dont know any more....in my mums day no one owned their own homes it was unheard of... you sound as if you resent anyone that had frugal parents who invested their money wisely.. OK, is there any chance that if we have this discussion you might do away with the hysterical rant and exaggerated accusations about me wanting to "penalising you for putting money in your home" and how "I must hate frugal parents" and deal with the points that were actually made in the OP.  You know of course that at the moment we have a progressive taxation system precisely because the belief has been up till now that those who have done better out of the social arrangements should be prepared to put that little bit more back in.  Are you opposed to that completely or not completely and if so why. Having said that there are many in much higher economic brackets then us who pay less and sometimes not even any tax at all. Does that trouble you or not and if so why. Now as I say you can go off hysterically and avoid a rational discussion or we could actually teach each other about why we believe the different things we believe.  I think you will find that those who have more... tend to spend more .. for instance a larger bigger posher home...in a well off position... this by its very existence costs a hell of a lot than Mr average would pay.. in the likes of GST/land tax/stamp duty/rates etc etc.... dont forget when you buy a house.. they stamp a piece of paper...the size of the house does not affect the size of the stamp.... so big house little house..work involved the same...yet because the house is bigger therefore costs more they pay a hell of a lot more stamp duty..... so they are paying more taxes....they are the ones that buy the luxury goods.. like the BMWs..and yachts all costing hell of a lot more in GST... dont be jealous of someone having a little bit more money.... I was asking you a few questions... as you seem to put all RICH people in the same bracket. I was just trying to determine who was classed as rich in your little rant. that was all. Actually, I think you will find (to use your words) that most economists (if not all) and Mr Warren Buffett (watch the interview) are of the view that one person with a lot of money tends to spend far less then a lot of people with the same amount of money. It really is pretty obvious when you think about it.  The average billionair may pay 10 times more for, lets say, 10 pairs of jeans he buys each year compared to 2 pairs of jeans the average person buys each year. But when you consider that there are 22 million of us compared to what, 20 of them, who spends the most in your opinion.  Go on, take a guess.  As to who is rich, the interview with Warren Buffet discusses this also.  And its basically that you have a progressive system of taxation that says the more welth benefit you receive from the society the more tax you should pay so that it goes up in increments.  IMO the average Australian pays enough tax but the welthier Australians do not pay enough and they think they are entitled to pay less tax because they put absolutely no value on the benefit they receive from the society that has made their wonderful standard of living possible. If they focused on the true value that they get from being in a society where everyone does everything for them for a pittance I think they would be prepared to pay more and we might defuse a lot of unnecessary tension that has built in this community because these people think they are entitled to even more.  Do you agree with the 3 propositions set out in the OP, yes or no and why?

no I don't.  your entire argument is that because someone has something, then they should have large amounts of it taken from them.  your position is little more than wanting the taxation system to punish people for success and wealth.  do you deny it?  Your type of argument ALWAYS flows from the mouths of the low paid who are already not merely subsidies but have their lives paid for by others.  40% of earners in this county pay ZERO net tax.  who do you think pays the rest?  those high earners or wealth y people you hate so much.

you are just a greedy lazy bugger who wants what everyone has but is unprepared to work for it.

Longweekend,
you forget that the rich get their wealth by exploiting the poor.

Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees -
& pay themselves high salaries at our expense.
Mining companies rape the land & the profits mostly go overseas.

You're such a fool that you can't see the obvious.

forgiven

namaste

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 5:06pm:

Longweekend, you forget that the rich get their wealth by exploiting the poor. Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees - & pay themselves high salaries at our expense. Mining companies rape the land & the profits mostly go overseas. You're such a fool that you can't see the obvious. forgiven namaste

only a true fool believes that - which is why you do.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 4:57pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 10:14am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 9:19am: that is drivel.  do you care to explain how any earner avoids paying tax? What follows is an article from the SMH in May 2014 And its just the tip of the iceburg.  Google Australia opened new offices in Darling Harbour in mid 2009 and derives revenue of 2 billion but its total tax expense was $466,802. Similar story with Apple. And none of this is to mention the corporate welfare they recieve and Taxpayer $$$ from dirty deals.  Remember $880Million payed out to Abbotts mate Murdoch straight after Abbott won the election.  OH yes it was all above board I'm sure.  "Budget pain? Not for millionaires who pay no tax Only some parts of this article are reproduced here to allow me space to respond to LongLiar. Check earlier version for the complete article “Pain all round”.... The latest tax statistics show 75 ultra-high-earning Australians paid no tax at all in 2011-12. Zero. Zip. Each earned more than $1 million from investments or wages. Between them they made $195 million, an average of $2.6 million each. The fortunate 75 paid no income tax, no Medicare levy and no Medicare surcharge, even though 60 of them had private health insurance. The reason? They managed to cut their combined taxable incomes to $82. That’s right, $1.10 each. Cutting taxable income that far doesn’t come cheap. Forty-five of the uber millionaires claimed a total of $64.4 million for the “cost of managing their tax affairs”. That’s a staggering $1.4 million each. (As a point of comparison an entry-level H&R Block consultation costs $49.) At face value the figures suggest these super-high earners were prepared to spend an unlikely half of their incomes on tax advice. A more likely explanation is that they received far greater incomes than they reported and spent only a portion on tax advice. .... n work-related deductions, for things such as car expenses and clothing. Ten claimed a total of $5 million for donations and gifts, a category that includes political as well as charitable donations. And they ran loss-making businesses. The 30 who were in business reported total business income of $121 million offset by expenses of $122 million. Those who ran farms carried over $61.5 million in earlier tax losses and lost an extra $3 million in 2011-12. When it came to investing they bought up big on shares that paid so-called franking credits on which they could claim tax deductions and stayed away from those that did not. They received $18.7 million in franked dividends in 2011-12, and only $565,000 in dividends that were unfranked. On Tuesday night these  75 will escape the deficit reduction levy applying to taxable incomes of more than $180,000. Their taxable incomes are closer to nil than $180,000 even though they are well off enough to afford outrageously priced tax advice. And they’ll almost certainly escape the extra charge for bulk-billed visits to the doctor. About the only thing they won’t escape is higher petrol prices, although it should be noted that five of them claim work-related car expenses, so they might be able pass those costs on to the Tax Office. It isn’t only millionaires. Tax Office figures show there are 1095 Australians earning in excess of $150,000 who pay no tax. Half of them sought tax advice and shelled out an impressive total of $98 million, which works out to $223,000 each. Their biggest lurk is negative gearing. Most lose large sums on properties they rent out in order to destroy their taxable incomes, hoping to make it up later when they sell the properties for a lightly taxed profit." there are 15million tax payers in Australia.  do you think that whinging about 75 of them somehow means anything?  and in NONE of these cases was the tax minimisation illegal.  how about concentrating on the vast, vast majority of people who pay all their tax and at huge rates compared to average-or-below earners.

Oh dear. Do you ever set out to have a clean honest debate.  Look at your post I responded to; Quote:"do you care to explain how any earner avoids paying tax?" Now if you were being honest i think you would find from what I posted the mechanisms by which some people avoid paying tax. Your question answered.  Now as to how many wealthy people are out there who go from paying no tax, to hardly any tax, to some but insufficient amounts of tax, to less tax proportionately to the % of tax that the average PAYE tax payer pays, I shudder to think of the numbers. 

Why did I only refer to legal non tax payers. Because i was being honest. Its the tax laws that I have a problem with.  There will always be those who will break the law and provided the law does not deliberately have loopholes (and I believe many do have deliberate loopholes) to allow them to escape paying their fair share, I'm not for the moment criticising the govt for that. Its where the laws dont tax them fairly in the first place that I have an issue with and I reproduced an article that shows just the tip of the iceburg on how that happens. And of course there are many, many more corporate examples such a google which I refer to.    

Ah Comrade - squeeze the "rich" for all they have right?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 7:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 4:57pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 10:14am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 9:19am: that is drivel.  do you care to explain how any earner avoids paying tax? What follows is an article from the SMH in May 2014 And its just the tip of the iceburg.  Google Australia opened new offices in Darling Harbour in mid 2009 and derives revenue of 2 billion but its total tax expense was $466,802. Similar story with Apple. And none of this is to mention the corporate welfare they recieve and Taxpayer $$$ from dirty deals.  Remember $880Million payed out to Abbotts mate Murdoch straight after Abbott won the election.  OH yes it was all above board I'm sure.  "Budget pain? Not for millionaires who pay no tax Only some parts of this article are reproduced here to allow me space to respond to LongLiar. Check earlier version for the complete article “Pain all round”.... The latest tax statistics show 75 ultra-high-earning Australians paid no tax at all in 2011-12. Zero. Zip. Each earned more than $1 million from investments or wages. Between them they made $195 million, an average of $2.6 million each. The fortunate 75 paid no income tax, no Medicare levy and no Medicare surcharge, even though 60 of them had private health insurance. The reason? They managed to cut their combined taxable incomes to $82. That’s right, $1.10 each. Cutting taxable income that far doesn’t come cheap. Forty-five of the uber millionaires claimed a total of $64.4 million for the “cost of managing their tax affairs”. That’s a staggering $1.4 million each. (As a point of comparison an entry-level H&R Block consultation costs $49.) At face value the figures suggest these super-high earners were prepared to spend an unlikely half of their incomes on tax advice. A more likely explanation is that they received far greater incomes than they reported and spent only a portion on tax advice. .... n work-related deductions, for things such as car expenses and clothing. Ten claimed a total of $5 million for donations and gifts, a category that includes political as well as charitable donations. And they ran loss-making businesses. It isn’t only millionaires. Tax Office figures show there are 1095 Australians earning in excess of $150,000 who pay no tax. Half of them sought tax advice and shelled out an impressive total of $98 million, which works out to $223,000 each. Their biggest lurk is negative gearing. Most lose large sums on properties they rent out in order to destroy their taxable incomes, hoping to make it up later when they sell the properties for a lightly taxed profit." there are 15million tax payers in Australia.  do you think that whinging about 75 of them somehow means anything?  and in NONE of these cases was the tax minimisation illegal.  how about concentrating on the vast, vast majority of people who pay all their tax and at huge rates compared to average-or-below earners. Oh dear. Do you ever set out to have a clean honest debate.  Look at your post I responded to; Quote:"do you care to explain how any earner avoids paying tax?" Now if you were being honest i think you would find from what I posted the mechanisms by which some people avoid paying tax. Your question answered.  Now as to how many wealthy people are out there who go from paying no tax, to hardly any tax, to some but insufficient amounts of tax, to less tax proportionately to the % of tax that the average PAYE tax payer pays, I shudder to think of the numbers.  Why did I only refer to legal non tax payers. Because i was being honest. Its the tax laws that I have a problem with.  There will always be those who will break the law and provided the law does not deliberately have loopholes (and I believe many do have deliberate loopholes) to allow them to escape paying their fair share, I'm not for the moment criticising the govt for that. Its where the laws dont tax them fairly in the first place that I have an issue with and I reproduced an article that shows just the tip of the iceburg on how that happens. And of course there are many, many more corporate examples such a google which I refer to.

despite your conspiracy-based beliefs very few avoid paying legal tax or even reasonable tax.  just because YOU think negative gearing is wrong doesn't make it so.  Just because you find some tax minimisation scheme wrong doesn't make it so.  at the end of the day these people you despise pay 20-1000 times the tax YOU pay and receive none of the welfare.  your complaints are envy-based and nothing more. 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 7:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 4:57pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 10:14am: [quote author=longweekend58 link=1410507855/39#39 date=1410563964] that is drivel.  do you care to explain how any earner avoids paying tax? What follows is an article from the SMH in May 2014 And its just the tip of the iceburg.  Google Australia opened new offices in Darling Harbour in mid 2009 and derives revenue of 2 billion but its total tax expense was $466,802. Similar story with Apple. And none of this is to mention the corporate welfare they recieve and Taxpayer $$$ from dirty deals.  Remember $880Million payed out to Abbotts mate Murdoch straight after Abbott won the election.  OH yes it was all above board I'm sure.  "Budget pain? Not for millionaires who pay no tax Only some parts of this article are reproduced here to allow me space to respond to LongLiar. Check earlier version for the complete article “Pain all round”.... The latest tax statistics show 75 ultra-high-earning Australians paid no tax at all in 2011-12. Zero. Zip. Each earned more than $1 million from investments or wages. Between them they made $195 million, an average of $2.6 million each. The fortunate 75 paid no income tax, no Medicare levy and no Medicare surcharge, even though 60 of them had private health insurance. The reason? They managed to cut their combined taxable incomes to $82. That’s right, $1.10 each. Cutting taxable income that far doesn’t come cheap. Forty-five of the uber millionaires claimed a total of $64.4 million for the “cost of managing their tax affairs”. That’s a staggering $1.4 million each. (As a point of comparison an entry-level H&R Block consultation costs $49.) At face value the figures suggest these super-high earners were prepared to spend an unlikely half of their incomes on tax advice. A more likely explanation is that they received far greater incomes than they reported and spent only a portion on tax advice. .... n work-related deductions, for things such as car expenses and clothing. Ten claimed a total of $5 million for donations and gifts, a category that includes political as well as charitable donations. And they ran loss-making businesses. The 30 who were in business reported total business income of $121 million offset by expenses of $122 million. Those who ran farms carried over $61.5 million in earlier tax losses and lost an extra $3 million in 2011-12. there are 15million tax payers in Australia.  do you think that whinging about 75 of them somehow means anything?  and in NONE of these cases was the tax minimisation illegal.  how about concentrating on the vast, vast majority of people who pay all their tax and at huge rates compared to average-or-below earners. Oh dear. Do you ever set out to have a clean honest debate.  Look at your post I responded to; Quote:"do you care to explain how any earner avoids paying tax?" Now if you were being honest i think you would find from what I posted the mechanisms by which some people avoid paying tax. Your question answered.  Now as to how many wealthy people are out there who go from paying no tax, to hardly any tax, to some but insufficient amounts of tax, to less tax proportionately to the % of tax that the average PAYE tax payer pays, I shudder to think of the numbers.  Why did I only refer to legal non tax payers. Because i was being honest. Its the tax laws that I have a problem with.  There will always be those who will break the law and provided the law does not deliberately have loopholes (and I believe many do have deliberate loopholes) to allow them to escape paying their fair share, I'm not for the moment criticising the govt for that. Its where the laws dont tax them fairly in the first place that I have an issue with and I reproduced an article that shows just the tip of the iceburg on how that happens. And of course there are many, many more corporate examples such a google which I refer to.

the google issue is a one MOST countries face and it not even remotely relevant to this discussion.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 5:02pm:

no I don't.  your entire argument is that because someone has something, then they should have large amounts of it taken from them.  your position is little more than wanting the taxation system to punish people for success and wealth.  do you deny it?  Your type of argument ALWAYS flows from the mouths of the low paid who are already not merely subsidies but have their lives paid for by others.  40% of earners in this county pay ZERO net tax.  who do you think pays the rest?  those high earners or wealth y people you hate so much. you are just a greedy lazy bugger who wants what everyone has but is unprepared to work for it.

Do you think that middle income people and not so middle income should pay more tax because of your ideological position? That is the truth of what will happen because you think taxes are too high and they should avoid them. If some don't pay taxes on their millions, you and I will have to pick up the slack.

Setanta wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 7:59pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 5:02pm: no I don't.  your entire argument is that because someone has something, then they should have large amounts of it taken from them.  your position is little more than wanting the taxation system to punish people for success and wealth.  do you deny it?  Your type of argument ALWAYS flows from the mouths of the low paid who are already not merely subsidies but have their lives paid for by others.  40% of earners in this county pay ZERO net tax.  who do you think pays the rest?  those high earners or wealth y people you hate so much. you are just a greedy lazy bugger who wants what everyone has but is unprepared to work for it. Do you think that middle income people and not so middle income should pay more tax because of your ideological position? That is the truth of what will happen because you think taxes are too high and they should avoid them. If some don't pay taxes on their millions, you and I will have to pick up the slack.

why don't you try and KNOW what I think on a topic before expressing comment on it. I don't have problems with our tax scales.  I don't have problems with negative gearing.  there are very few people who avoid tax like you claim. and the title of the thread is your basic envy-based 'someone else should pay for my life' argument.  a great deal to criticise there!

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 8:04pm:

why don't you try and KNOW what I think on a topic before expressing comment on it. I don't have problems with our tax scales.  I don't have problems with negative gearing.  there are very few people who avoid tax like you claim. and the title of the thread is your basic envy-based 'someone else should pay for my life' argument.  a great deal to criticise there!

Why don't you publish your manifesto? ::)

Setanta wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 8:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 8:04pm: why don't you try and KNOW what I think on a topic before expressing comment on it. I don't have problems with our tax scales.  I don't have problems with negative gearing.  there are very few people who avoid tax like you claim. and the title of the thread is your basic envy-based 'someone else should pay for my life' argument.  a great deal to criticise there! Why don't you publish your manifesto? ::)

manifestos are for rebels and conspiracy theorists.  I believe the current income tax system to be basically fair and reasonable.  and you?  what is YOUR manifesto?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 8:15pm:

Setanta wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 8:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 8:04pm: why don't you try and KNOW what I think on a topic before expressing comment on it. I don't have problems with our tax scales.  I don't have problems with negative gearing.  there are very few people who avoid tax like you claim. and the title of the thread is your basic envy-based 'someone else should pay for my life' argument.  a great deal to criticise there! Why don't you publish your manifesto? ::) manifestos are for rebels and conspiracy theorists.  I believe the current income tax system to be basically fair and reasonable.  and you?  what is YOUR manifesto?

I'm not the one that expects others to know my mind. How would I be expected to KNOW what you think unless you have published a manifesto?

Edit: Just answer my question. Is it OK that some can dwindle tax to nothing whilst earning millions and others must take up the slack? It's easy to say "no that's not particularly fair, maybe things need to be looked at" or "bloody oath! I do it so I love it."

Laws change, do you think the laws that allow this should be looked at, every dollar they don't pay, you and I pay.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 5:02pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 10:46am: cods wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 9:58am: [quote author=ImSpartacus2 link=1410507855/5#5 date=1410519057][quote author=cods link=1410507855/1#1 date=1410508846]do you own your own home? your own car.. do you have superannuation..? do you have money in the bank...lovely if you have any of those.. ..... Deleted to make room to respond to LongLiar.  Actually, I think you will find (to use your words) that most economists (if not all) and Mr Warren Buffett (watch the interview) are of the view that one person with a lot of money tends to spend far less then a lot of people with the same amount of money. It really is pretty obvious when you think about it.  The average billionair may pay 10 times more for, lets say, 10 pairs of jeans he buys each year compared to 2 pairs of jeans the average person buys each year. But when you consider that there are 22 million of us compared to what, 20 of them, who spends the most in your opinion.  Go on, take a guess.  As to who is rich, the interview with Warren Buffet discusses this also.  And its basically that you have a progressive system of taxation that says the more welth benefit you receive from the society the more tax you should pay so that it goes up in increments.  IMO the average Australian pays enough tax but the welthier Australians do not pay enough and they think they are entitled to pay less tax because they put absolutely no value on the benefit they receive from the society that has made their wonderful standard of living possible. If they focused on the true value that they get from being in a society where everyone does everything for them for a pittance I think they would be prepared to pay more and we might defuse a lot of unnecessary tension that has built in this community because these people think they are entitled to even more.  Do you agree with the 3 propositions set out in the OP, yes or no and why?    no I don't.  your entire argument is that because someone has something, then they should have large amounts of it taken from them.  Wrong! Read the OP again. When you can either restate or address the arguments in a more accurate and rational manner we can have the discussion.  But i do refer you to what Bobby has replied and also to the articles i have posted about the enormous benefits the banks get (the banks are just one example) from their privileged position in the society and that therefore they should pay extra for that benefit.  There are various gradations of that and that's why we have a progressive tax system.  Do you disagree with progressive tax????? your position is little more than wanting the taxation system to punish people for success and wealth.  do you deny it?  Yes I deny it.  The underlining of the word "punish" is mine to demonstrate why it would be ridiculous of me to attempt to have a rational discussion with you on this unless you let go of your emotion on this.  Warren Buffet is of the same view.  Do you think its because he wants to punish wealthy people for their effort. its because he recognises the value he and his fellow wealth people have got from society and he believes its a debt he owes to society. Punishments got nothing to do with it.         Your type of argument ALWAYS flows from the mouths of the low paid who are already not merely subsidies but have their lives paid for by others.  40% of earners in this county pay ZERO net tax.  who do you think pays the rest?  those high earners or wealth y people you hate so much. Two things. (1) A civilised society takes care of the weak and the vulnerable amongst them. The wealthy and PAYE tax payers all pay for that and it is something that is not negotiable.  That's the price of community I'm afraid.  (2) The trouble is, since the 70s, a number of things have happened to increase the burden on the poor and middle class workers and alleviate the burden on the more wealthy segments of the community (i) The workers share of the wealth he/she creates has been progressively falling by way of real wages; (ii) Business and Corporate tax burden has been progressively falling while the workers tax burden has remained substantially the same; (iii) business and corporate tax concessions and corporate hand outs have increased and (iv)and past revenues from government assets have been lost due to massive privatisation. The combined result is that the PAYE tax payer is no longer able to cope with these additional burdens and so we need to pair back the unreasonable and unsustainable benefits that have flowed to the wealthier segments of thew community if the community is to9 survive. Nothing to do with hate.  Just fairness and good sense. you are just a greedy lazy bugger who wants what everyone has but is unprepared to work for it. yeah, me and Warren Buffet (and many other wealth people) who believe that these imbalances need urgently to be addressed if our societies are to survive

Setanta wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 8:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 8:15pm: Setanta wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 8:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 8:04pm: why don't you try and KNOW what I think on a topic before expressing comment on it. I don't have problems with our tax scales.  I don't have problems with negative gearing.  there are very few people who avoid tax like you claim. and the title of the thread is your basic envy-based 'someone else should pay for my life' argument.  a great deal to criticise there! Why don't you publish your manifesto? ::) manifestos are for rebels and conspiracy theorists.  I believe the current income tax system to be basically fair and reasonable.  and you?  what is YOUR manifesto? I'm not the one that expects others to know my mind. How would I be expected to KNOW what you think unless you have published a manifesto? Edit: Just answer my question. Is it OK that some can dwindle tax to nothing whilst earning millions and others must take up the slack? It's easy to say "no that's not particularly fair, maybe things need to be looked at" or "bloody oath! I do it so I love it." Laws change, do you think the laws that allow this should be looked at, every dollar they don't pay, you and I pay.

IM a conservative.  do you know what that means???  come back when you do.  that might be your starting position.

the 'dwindling to nothing' argument is pointless as it literally applies to 70 people in the entire country.  if you make a generalist statement then it must by definition  apply GENERALLY and not to a 0.000001% subset.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 7:45pm:

Ah Comrade - squeeze the "rich" for all they have right?

No just what they owe in return for the benefits they receive. Remember in the end this is for your benefit because you stand to lose much much more financially if everything goes to sh!t.   

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 5:48pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 5:06pm: Longweekend, you forget that the rich get their wealth by exploiting the poor. Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees - & pay themselves high salaries at our expense. Mining companies rape the land & the profits mostly go overseas. You're such a fool that you can't see the obvious. forgiven namaste only a true fool believes that - which is why you do.

What I have written is 100% true yet you deny it.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 8:35pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 7:45pm: Ah Comrade - squeeze the "rich" for all they have right? No just what they owe in return for the benefits they receive. Remember in the end this is for your benefit because you stand to lose much much more financially if everything goes to sh!t.

what 'benefits'???  a person who earns a high income is not being 'benefitted' at all.  they usually have studied long and hard, taken risks and worked harder and longer than most.  it isn't a benefit at all.  it is a reward.  same for business owners who take risks, work long hours and put all the effort into making a winning business.  again, it isn't a benefit, it is a reward.  you confuse the two words.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 8:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 5:48pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 5:06pm: Longweekend, you forget that the rich get their wealth by exploiting the poor. Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees - & pay themselves high salaries at our expense. Mining companies rape the land & the profits mostly go overseas. You're such a fool that you can't see the obvious. forgiven namaste only a true fool believes that - which is why you do. What I have written is 100% true yet you deny it.

I do deny it.  and that is not in small part because you haven't even attempted to prove your point.  and a 'proof' does not constitute making a statement about an individual case but rather proving that ALL rich people are so because they exploited others.  I look forward to

a) your non-reply
b) running off to hangnail for a hug
c) a single pointless incident
d) a proof that is nothing of the kind

I personally tip b c and d

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 8:26pm:

IM a conservative.  do you know what that means???  come back when you do.  that might be your starting position. the 'dwindling to nothing' argument is pointless as it literally applies to 70 people in the entire country.  if you make a generalist statement then it must by definition  apply GENERALLY and not to a 0.000001% subset.

There is great variation under the conservative banner, would you agree?

If I make a general statement about a group, it's about that group, not everyone on the planet. I'm sure I've heard you talk about "subsets" of our population.

Setanta wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 8:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 8:26pm: IM a conservative.  do you know what that means???  come back when you do.  that might be your starting position. the 'dwindling to nothing' argument is pointless as it literally applies to 70 people in the entire country.  if you make a generalist statement then it must by definition  apply GENERALLY and not to a 0.000001% subset. There is great variation under the conservative banner, would you agree? If I make a general statement about a group, it's about that group, not everyone on the planet. I'm sure I've heard you talk about "subsets" of our population.

sounds like anice way to avoid debating my position.  come back when you have an actual comment.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 8:40pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 8:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 5:48pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 5:06pm: Longweekend, you forget that the rich get their wealth by exploiting the poor. Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees - & pay themselves high salaries at our expense. Mining companies rape the land & the profits mostly go overseas. You're such a fool that you can't see the obvious. forgiven namaste only a true fool believes that - which is why you do. What I have written is 100% true yet you deny it. I do deny it.  and that is not in small part because you haven't even attempted to prove your point.  and a 'proof' does not constitute making a statement about an individual case but rather proving that ALL rich people are so because they exploited others.  I look forward to a) your non-reply b) running off to hangnail for a hug c) a single pointless incident d) a proof that is nothing of the kind I personally tip b c and d

My statement still stands.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 7:57pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 7:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 4:57pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 10:14am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 9:19am: that is drivel.  do you care to explain how any earner avoids paying tax? What follows is an article from the SMH in May 2014 And its just the tip of the iceburg.  Google Australia opened new offices in Darling Harbour in mid 2009 and derives revenue of 2 billion but its total tax expense was $466,802. Similar story with Apple. And none of this is to mention the corporate welfare they recieve and Taxpayer $$$ from dirty deals.  Remember $880Million payed out to Abbotts mate Murdoch straight after Abbott won the election.  OH yes it was all above board I'm sure.  "Budget pain? Not for millionaires who pay no tax Only some parts of this article are reproduced here to allow me space to respond to LongLiar. Check earlier version for the complete article “Pain all round”.... The latest tax statistics show 75 ultra-high-earning Australians paid no tax at all in 2011-12. Zero. Zip. Each earned more than $1 million from investments or wages. Between them they made $195 million, an average of $2.6 million each. The fortunate 75 paid no income tax, no Medicare levy and no Medicare surcharge, even though 60 of them had private health insurance. The reason? They managed to cut their combined taxable incomes to $82. That’s right, $1.10 each. Cutting taxable income that far doesn’t come cheap. Forty-five of the uber millionaires claimed a total of $64.4 million for the “cost of managing their tax affairs”. That’s a staggering $1.4 million each. (As a point of comparison an entry-level H&R Block consultation costs $49.) At face value the figures suggest these super-high earners were prepared to spend an unlikely half of their incomes on tax advice. A more likely explanation is that they received far greater incomes than they reported and spent only a portion on tax advice. .... n work-related deductions, for things such as car expenses and clothing. Ten claimed a total of $5 million for donations and gifts, a category that includes political as well as charitable donations. And they ran loss-making businesses. It isn’t only millionaires. Tax Office figures show there are 1095 Australians earning in excess of $150,000 who pay no tax. Half of them sought tax advice and shelled out an impressive total of $98 million, which works out to $223,000 each. Their biggest lurk is negative gearing. Most lose large sums on properties they rent out in order to destroy their taxable incomes, hoping to make it up later when they sell the properties for a lightly taxed profit." there are 15million tax payers in Australia.  do you think that whinging about 75 of them somehow means anything?  and in NONE of these cases was the tax minimisation illegal.  how about concentrating on the vast, vast majority of people who pay all their tax and at huge rates compared to average-or-below earners. Oh dear. Do you ever set out to have a clean honest debate.  Look at your post I responded to; Quote:"do you care to explain how any earner avoids paying tax?" Now if you were being honest i think you would find from what I posted the mechanisms by which some people avoid paying tax. Your question answered.  Now as to how many wealthy people are out there who go from paying no tax, to hardly any tax, to some but insufficient amounts of tax, to less tax proportionately to the % of tax that the average PAYE tax payer pays, I shudder to think of the numbers.  Why did I only refer to legal non tax payers. Because i was being honest. Its the tax laws that I have a problem with.  There will always be those who will break the law and provided the law does not deliberately have loopholes (and I believe many do have deliberate loopholes) to allow them to escape paying their fair share, I'm not for the moment criticising the govt for that. Its where the laws dont tax them fairly in the first place that I have an issue with and I reproduced an article that shows just the tip of the iceburg on how that happens. And of course there are many, many more corporate examples such a google which I refer to.     despite your conspiracy-based beliefs very few avoid paying legal tax or even reasonable tax.  just because YOU think negative gearing is wrong doesn't make it so.  Just because you find some tax minimisation scheme wrong doesn't make it so.  at the end of the day these people you despise pay 20-1000 times the tax YOU pay and receive none of the welfare.  your complaints are envy-based and nothing more.

Problem is that the net effect is to transfer more of the tax burden on the PAYE tax payer. Like I say you do like to make it up as you go along   

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 8:43pm:

Setanta wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 8:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 8:26pm: IM a conservative.  do you know what that means???  come back when you do.  that might be your starting position. the 'dwindling to nothing' argument is pointless as it literally applies to 70 people in the entire country.  if you make a generalist statement then it must by definition  apply GENERALLY and not to a 0.000001% subset. There is great variation under the conservative banner, would you agree? If I make a general statement about a group, it's about that group, not everyone on the planet. I'm sure I've heard you talk about "subsets" of our population. sounds like anice way to avoid debating my position.  come back when you have an actual comment.

No, I'm asking you if it's fair that other people must pay more tax because others are using loopholes to pay none. Should these loopholes be looked at?

edit: The number of them means nothing, it's based on a principal that I thought conservatives believed in, pay your way. If it's only a small percent of people it doesn't matter. Why not apply that thinking to welfare "cheats"?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 7:58pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 7:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 4:57pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 10:14am: [quote author=longweekend58 link=1410507855/39#39 date=1410563964] that is drivel.  do you care to explain how any earner avoids paying tax? What follows is an article from the SMH in May 2014 And its just the tip of the iceburg.  Google Australia opened new offices in Darling Harbour in mid 2009 and derives revenue of 2 billion but its total tax expense was $466,802. Similar story with Apple. And none of this is to mention the corporate welfare they recieve and Taxpayer $$$ from dirty deals.  Remember $880Million payed out to Abbotts mate Murdoch straight after Abbott won the election.  OH yes it was all above board I'm sure.  "Budget pain? Not for millionaires who pay no tax Only some parts of this article are reproduced here to allow me space to respond to LongLiar. Check earlier version for the complete article “Pain all round”.... The latest tax statistics show 75 ultra-high-earning Australians paid no tax at all in 2011-12. Zero. Zip. Each earned more than $1 million from investments or wages. Between them they made $195 million, an average of $2.6 million each. The fortunate 75 paid no income tax, no Medicare levy and no Medicare surcharge, even though 60 of them had private health insurance. The reason? They managed to cut their combined taxable incomes to $82. That’s right, $1.10 each. Cutting taxable income that far doesn’t come cheap. Forty-five of the uber millionaires claimed a total of $64.4 million for the “cost of managing their tax affairs”. That’s a staggering $1.4 million each. (As a point of comparison an entry-level H&R Block consultation costs $49.) At face value the figures suggest these super-high earners were prepared to spend an unlikely half of their incomes on tax advice. A more likely explanation is that they received far greater incomes than they reported and spent only a portion on tax advice. .... n work-related deductions, for things such as car expenses and clothing. Ten claimed a total of $5 million for donations and gifts, a category that includes political as well as charitable donations. And they ran loss-making businesses. The 30 who were in business reported total business income of $121 million offset by expenses of $122 million. Those who ran farms carried over $61.5 million in earlier tax losses and lost an extra $3 million in 2011-12. there are 15million tax payers in Australia.  do you think that whinging about 75 of them somehow means anything?  and in NONE of these cases was the tax minimisation illegal.  how about concentrating on the vast, vast majority of people who pay all their tax and at huge rates compared to average-or-below earners. Oh dear. Do you ever set out to have a clean honest debate.  Look at your post I responded to; Quote:"do you care to explain how any earner avoids paying tax?" Now if you were being honest i think you would find from what I posted the mechanisms by which some people avoid paying tax. Your question answered.  Now as to how many wealthy people are out there who go from paying no tax, to hardly any tax, to some but insufficient amounts of tax, to less tax proportionately to the % of tax that the average PAYE tax payer pays, I shudder to think of the numbers.  Why did I only refer to legal non tax payers. Because i was being honest. Its the tax laws that I have a problem with.  There will always be those who will break the law and provided the law does not deliberately have loopholes (and I believe many do have deliberate loopholes) to allow them to escape paying their fair share, I'm not for the moment criticising the govt for that. Its where the laws dont tax them fairly in the first place that I have an issue with and I reproduced an article that shows just the tip of the iceburg on how that happens. And of course there are many, many more corporate examples such a google which I refer to.     the google issue is a one MOST countries face and it not even remotely relevant to this discussion.

The Google example is not just one company. The problem is replicated over and over by many many companies internationally and domestically all over the world. I mean, think of the crisis we are in. Not only are they not paying their share, they are not paying anything. No more free lunches. 

Longy believes that instead of making the Banks & the mining companies pay more we
should punish the most disadvantaged people in Australia:

the unemployed , people with disabilities.

That's Liberal party thinking - it's not surprising as he's a paid up member of the Liberal party.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 8:38pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 8:35pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 7:45pm: Ah Comrade - squeeze the "rich" for all they have right? No just what they owe in return for the benefits they receive. Remember in the end this is for your benefit because you stand to lose much much more financially if everything goes to sh!t.    what 'benefits'???  a person who earns a high income is not being 'benefitted' at all.  they usually have studied long and hard, taken risks and worked harder and longer than most.  it isn't a benefit at all.  it is a reward.  same for business owners who take risks, work long hours and put all the effort into making a winning business.  again, it isn't a benefit, it is a reward.  you confuse the two words.

And back we go to the age of entitlement. We're more entitled, we deserve more. Everybody else's contribution is nothing (dont even pay them penalty rates because putting them and their families out on the weekends means nothing since they don't really work hard anyways) and my contribution, well I work really hard.  Yeah, dont we all mate. If you want a good CEO you will have to pay for him.  I know, lets hire Alan Joyce and Solomon Trujillo and all the other countless no hopers and corrupt liberal MPs who worked really hard to get where they are.  And give them bonuses every year, for what??  Of course you want to demean the efforts of everyone else because it makes you seem more entitled and more valuable. Well its not true and where there are banks and mining companies who make super profits out of the community (i) they must first be made to pay tax and (ii) they must also be made to pay extra because its thanks to the social arrangements that they are phenomenally rich.  Its not a big ask

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 9:42pm:

And back we go to the age of entitlement. We're more entitled, we deserve more. Everybody else's contribution is nothing (dont even pay them penalty rates because putting them and their families out on the weekends means nothing since they don't really work hard anyways) and my contribution, well I work really hard.  Yeah, dont we all mate. If you want a good CEO you will have to pay for him.  I know, lets hire Alan Joyce and Solomon Trujillo and all the other countless no hopers and corrupt liberal MPs who worked really hard to get where they are.  And give them bonuses every year, for what??  Of course you want to demean the efforts of everyone else because it makes you seem more entitled and more valuable. Well its not true and where there are banks and mining companies who make super profits out of the community (i) they must first be made to pay tax and (ii) they must also be made to pay extra because its thanks to the social arrangements that they are phenomenally rich.  Its not a big ask

http://www.africalol.co.za/admin/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/10382878_10204169399504008_999547208414718102_n-248x300.jpg

George_Orhell wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 7:37pm:

As usual leftard hate for anybody who is successful through hard work, either in their own business, at their career, in their professional life, or even in their personal life. I smacking detest that mentality!

The truth is something else - you don't become rich simply because you work hard.

In fact there are many people who much, much harder than richest people and and are not rich. It's to do with opportunity from circumstance.

So higher taxation on the more wealthy is a recognition that wealth is partly good fortune. Higher tax isn't hate, it's reasonable and fair.

Taxation should create a similar burden on all taxpayers, this is why the richer are taxed at higher rates.

Setanta wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 9:51pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 9:42pm: And back we go to the age of entitlement. We're more entitled, we deserve more. Everybody else's contribution is nothing (dont even pay them penalty rates because putting them and their families out on the weekends means nothing since they don't really work hard anyways) and my contribution, well I work really hard.  Yeah, dont we all mate. If you want a good CEO you will have to pay for him.  I know, lets hire Alan Joyce and Solomon Trujillo and all the other countless no hopers and corrupt liberal MPs who worked really hard to get where they are.  And give them bonuses every year, for what??  Of course you want to demean the efforts of everyone else because it makes you seem more entitled and more valuable. Well its not true and where there are banks and mining companies who make super profits out of the community (i) they must first be made to pay tax and (ii) they must also be made to pay extra because its thanks to the social arrangements that they are phenomenally rich.  Its not a big ask http://www.africalol.co.za/admin/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/10382878_10204169399504008_999547208414718102_n-248x300.jpg

http://www.africalol.co.za/admin/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/10382878_10204169399504008_999547208414718102_n-248x300.jpg
Couldn't agree more

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 5:02pm:

no I don't.  your entire argument is that because someone has something, then they should have large amounts of it taken from them.  your position is little more than wanting the taxation system to punish people for success and wealth.  do you deny it?  Your type of argument ALWAYS flows from the mouths of the low paid who are already not merely subsidies but have their lives paid for by others.  40% of earners in this county pay ZERO net tax.  who do you think pays the rest?  those high earners or wealth y people you hate so much. you are just a greedy lazy bugger who wants what everyone has but is unprepared to work for it.

so tell me something. Where does the federal reserve get its money from that it lends out and charges interest on ?

you don't actually believe they work for it do you ?

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13^th, 2014 at 8:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 8:40pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 8:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 5:48pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2014 at 5:06pm: Longweekend, you forget that the rich get their wealth by exploiting the poor. Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees - & pay themselves high salaries at our expense. Mining companies rape the land & the profits mostly go overseas. You're such a fool that you can't see the obvious. forgiven namaste only a true fool believes that - which is why you do. What I have written is 100% true yet you deny it. I do deny it.  and that is not in small part because you haven't even attempted to prove your point.  and a 'proof' does not constitute making a statement about an individual case but rather proving that ALL rich people are so because they exploited others.  I look forward to a) your non-reply b) running off to hangnail for a hug c) a single pointless incident d) a proof that is nothing of the kind I personally tip b c and d My statement still stands.

so does your stupidity.  clinging to a silly statement without proof just makes you look stupid.

Sir Bobby,

Quote:

Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees - & pay themselves high salaries at our expense. Mining companies rape the land & the profits mostly go overseas.

The Chinese pay 0.25% interest on a mortgage - we pay 6.5%.

Most mining shares are held by overseas investors.

These are just facts.

Longweekend is in a state of denial.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 9:11am:

Sir Bobby, Quote: Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees - & pay themselves high salaries at our expense. Mining companies rape the land & the profits mostly go overseas. The Chinese pay 0.25% interest on a mortgage - we pay 6.5%. Most mining shares are held by overseas investors. These are just facts. Longweekend is in a state of denial.

And you would be more than happy to provide the evidence to validate these 'facts'?

Remember your biased opinion is not a 'fact'.


Ohterwise you may leave yourself open to a highly warranted b1tch slapping  ;D ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 9:33am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:11am: Sir Bobby, Quote: Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees - & pay themselves high salaries at our expense. Mining companies rape the land & the profits mostly go overseas. The Chinese pay 0.25% interest on a mortgage - we pay 6.5%. Most mining shares are held by overseas investors. These are just facts. Longweekend is in a state of denial. And you would be more than happy to provide the evidence to validate these 'facts'? Remember your biased opinion is not a 'fact'. Ohterwise you may leave yourself open to a highly warranted b1tch slapping  ;D ;D

BigOl is another denier of reality.

forgiven

namaste

Bobby. wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 9:42am:

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:33am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:11am: Sir Bobby, Quote: Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees - & pay themselves high salaries at our expense. Mining companies rape the land & the profits mostly go overseas. The Chinese pay 0.25% interest on a mortgage - we pay 6.5%. Most mining shares are held by overseas investors. These are just facts. Longweekend is in a state of denial. And you would be more than happy to provide the evidence to validate these 'facts'? Remember your biased opinion is not a 'fact'. Ohterwise you may leave yourself open to a highly warranted b1tch slapping  ;D ;D BigOl is another denier of reality. forgiven namaste

Post  the supporting evidence and Ill be more than happy to become a non-denier.


It can't be too hard to show where these chinese investors are getting 2.5% loans from aussie banks or where most of the major share holders of aour mining companies are foreigners and not Australian super funds.

I want to beleive you, but until you provide the evidence it is impossible to do so.

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 9:48am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:42am: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:33am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:11am: Sir Bobby, Quote: Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees - & pay themselves high salaries at our expense. Mining companies rape the land & the profits mostly go overseas. The Chinese pay 0.25% interest on a mortgage - we pay 6.5%. Most mining shares are held by overseas investors. These are just facts. Longweekend is in a state of denial. And you would be more than happy to provide the evidence to validate these 'facts'? Remember your biased opinion is not a 'fact'. Ohterwise you may leave yourself open to a highly warranted b1tch slapping  ;D ;D BigOl is another denier of reality. forgiven namaste Post  the supporting evidence and Ill be more than happy to become a non-denier. It can't be too hard to show where these chinese investors are getting 2.5% loans from aussie banks or where most of the major share holders of aour mining companies are foreigners and not Australian super funds. I want to beleive you, but until you provide the evidence it is impossible to do so.

I can provide you with the following regarding Bobby's claims about the banks. No doubt you will find some excuse for why its all BS too;

THE SHAREHOLDER STEPHEN MAYNE (who I think you will know of)

Ever since federal and state governments privatised various public sector banks in the 1990s, Australians have increasingly suffered the world's most expensive banking system.

Skyrocketing transaction fees, the compulsory superannuation gravy train and a near quadrupling of residential mortgages to almost $1 trillion have helped create a profit bonanza for Australian banks like nowhere else in the world.

The big four have gone from a combined market capitalisation of below $30 billion in 1992 to almost $300 billion today, even after the global financial crisis.
Anyone running a government-licensed business can clearly afford to pay a bit more tax when you consider these latest annual pre-tax profits: Commonwealth Bank: $8.94 billion; Westpac: $8 billion; ANZ: $6.6 billion; NAB: $6.5 billion.

With combined pre-tax earnings of $30.1 billion, it is no surprise that our big four banks are so highly valued by the sharemarket.

Most modern economies have a couple of banks in their top 10 companies, although the US has none in its top five.

In Australia, banks represent four of the top five behind BHP Billiton, which is now the world's third most valuable company.

But BHP is making profits from genuinely global operations driven by exports. The bigfour banks just gouge long-suffering Australian consumers and businesses. They might dominate the New Zealand banking market but that is the extent of their global success.
Banking is a highly regulated utility business. If the water, gas, electricity or telco industries were pocketing $30 billion annually, consumers would be up in arms.

There are two obvious solutions to this situation. First, competition and regulatory intervention could drive down prices and profit margins for bank consumers. That hasn't worked too well in the past, so why not embrace the second option: a banking super profits tax?

If a Conservative British prime minister can happily embrace a bank tax to help fix his budget deficit, then why not the same in Australia?

Who would need a flood levy if bank shareholders were asked to pay another $2 billion to $3 billion a year through a super profits tax?

The British government is expecting to raise an extra £2.6 billion a year from a
permanent levy on bank assets that was confirmed only last month.

Big bank bosses would no doubt complain, but when you are earning $8 million a year, you can afford to give a bit back.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/should-banks-pay-a-super-profits-tax-20110305-1bih1.html#ixzz3DF772500

Dear Spartacus,

thank you for providing the evidence that BigOl wanted.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 9:55am:

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:48am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:42am: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:33am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:11am: Sir Bobby, Quote: Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees - & pay themselves high salaries at our expense. Mining companies rape the land & the profits mostly go overseas. The Chinese pay 0.25% interest on a mortgage - we pay 6.5%. Most mining shares are held by overseas investors. These are just facts. Longweekend is in a state of denial. And you would be more than happy to provide the evidence to validate these 'facts'? Remember your biased opinion is not a 'fact'. Ohterwise you may leave yourself open to a highly warranted b1tch slapping  ;D ;D BigOl is another denier of reality. forgiven namaste Post  the supporting evidence and Ill be more than happy to become a non-denier. It can't be too hard to show where these chinese investors are getting 2.5% loans from aussie banks or where most of the major share holders of aour mining companies are foreigners and not Australian super funds. I want to beleive you, but until you provide the evidence it is impossible to do so. I can provide you with the following regarding Bobby's claims about the banks. No doubt you will find some excuse for why its all BS too; THE SHAREHOLDER STEPHEN MAYNE (who I think you will know of) Ever since federal and state governments privatised various public sector banks in the 1990s, Australians have increasingly suffered the world's most expensive banking system. Skyrocketing transaction fees, the compulsory superannuation gravy train and a near quadrupling of residential mortgages to almost $1 trillion have helped create a profit bonanza for Australian banks like nowhere else in the world. The big four have gone from a combined market capitalisation of below $30 billion in 1992 to almost $300 billion today, even after the global financial crisis. Anyone running a government-licensed business can clearly afford to pay a bit more tax when you consider these latest annual pre-tax profits: Commonwealth Bank: $8.94 billion; Westpac: $8 billion; ANZ: $6.6 billion; NAB: $6.5 billion. With combined pre-tax earnings of $30.1 billion, it is no surprise that our big four banks are so highly valued by the sharemarket. Most modern economies have a couple of banks in their top 10 companies, although the US has none in its top five. In Australia, banks represent four of the top five behind BHP Billiton, which is now the world's third most valuable company. But BHP is making profits from genuinely global operations driven by exports. The bigfour banks just gouge long-suffering Australian consumers and businesses. They might dominate the New Zealand banking market but that is the extent of their global success. Banking is a highly regulated utility business. If the water, gas, electricity or telco industries were pocketing $30 billion annually, consumers would be up in arms. There are two obvious solutions to this situation. First, competition and regulatory intervention could drive down prices and profit margins for bank consumers. That hasn't worked too well in the past, so why not embrace the second option: a banking super profits tax? If a Conservative British prime minister can happily embrace a bank tax to help fix his budget deficit, then why not the same in Australia? Who would need a flood levy if bank shareholders were asked to pay another $2 billion to $3 billion a year through a super profits tax? The British government is expecting to raise an extra £2.6 billion a year from a permanent levy on bank assets that was confirmed only last month. Big bank bosses would no doubt complain, but when you are earning $8 million a year, you can afford to give a bit back. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/should-banks-pay-a-super-profits-tax-20110305-1bih1.html#ixzz3DF772500

Any chance you could highlight the bit where the banks are lending to the chinese at 0.25 % I can't seem to find it or where it says the the major share holders of Australian mining companies are foreigners

You know since you went to all the trouble of providing the evidence that booby is stating a 'fact'

Bobby. wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:01am:

Dear Spartacus, thank you for providing the evidence that BigOl wanted.

Hang on he still has to find it so don't wet yourself with excitement yet.  ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

ANZ’s Singapore unit is currently advertising a standard variable interest rate of 1.17 per cent. By contrast, ANZ Australia’s standard variable interest rate currently sits at 5.88 per cent. This interest rate differential looks likely to continue, with the Singaporean Central bank setting the cash rate in June at 0.21 per cent, compared with Australia’s target of 2.5 per cent. At the same time, the Singapore dollar and Australian dollar have traditionally traded in a relatively tight range, minimising currency risk. With Australian banks targeting foreign investors, a federal parliamentary inquiry this week raised questions about the checks they are conducting on overseas buyers. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/singaporean-investors-hungry-for-a-piece-of-the-australian-housing-market-20140725-zsvj9.html#ixzz3DFFBXIAZ

Bobby. wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:22am:

Quote: ANZ’s Singapore unit is currently advertising a standard variable interest rate of 1.17 per cent. By contrast, ANZ Australia’s standard variable interest rate currently sits at 5.88 per cent. This interest rate differential looks likely to continue, with the Singaporean Central bank setting the cash rate in June at 0.21 per cent, compared with Australia’s target of 2.5 per cent. At the same time, the Singapore dollar and Australian dollar have traditionally traded in a relatively tight range, minimising currency risk. With Australian banks targeting foreign investors, a federal parliamentary inquiry this week raised questions about the checks they are conducting on overseas buyers. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/singaporean-investors-hungry-for-a-piece-of-the-australian-housing-market-20140725-zsvj9.html#ixzz3DFFBXIAZ

You do realise that is NOT the morgate rate, but the cash rate. Ill assume your ignorance is boundless and explain the difference for you.


The Cash rate is  is the term used in Australia and New Zealand for the bank rate and is the rate of interest which the central bank charges on overnight loans to commercial banks.

The Mortgage rate is the rate at which banks lend to mortgagees (people) to purchase property.


So unless these chinese investors you are talking about are commercial banks, you are not even close to proving your 'fact'.


You know sometime ( most of the time) you should just either not post or walk away when you get caught in a lie, it would be a lot less embarrassing for you.


Here is what you claimed, and what I asked you to prove



Bobby. wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 9:11am:

The Chinese pay 0.25% interest on a mortgage - we pay 6.5%. Most mining shares are held by overseas investors. These are just facts. Longweekend is in a state of denial.

Quote:

standard variable interest rate of 1.17 per cent

Still a lot lower than our 6.5 %.

You are forgiven

namaste

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 9:54pm:

For those of you interested in discussing this rationally, you might be interested to know that even the multi multi billionair Warren Buffett argues for a progressive taxation system on the grounds that prosperous Americans owe part of their success to other citizens. Have a listen to what he has to say in an interview on CNN Money http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6tBmaUNY0E

So how much lower is the top income tax rate in the USA compared to Australia, do well off Australians pay far more tax than those in the USA?

What do the low income tax rates in the USA have to do with high income tax rates in Australia?

Bobby. wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:41am:

Quote: standard variable interest rate of 1.17 per cent Still a lot lower than our 6.5 %. You are forgiven namaste

Ours is not 6.5% but 5.88% and theirs is NOT 0.25% as you stated as a "fact".

So you are totally wrong on that point


What about foreigners owning most of the shares in our mining companies, want to have a go at that or just concede defeat now?

Frig it doesn't take too much effort to do some basic research.

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:02am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:55am: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:48am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:42am: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:33am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:11am: Sir Bobby, Quote: Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees - & pay themselves high salaries at our expense. Mining companies rape the land & the profits mostly go overseas. The Chinese pay 0.25% interest on a mortgage - we pay 6.5%. Most mining shares are held by overseas investors. These are just facts. Longweekend is in a state of denial. And you would be more than happy to provide the evidence to validate these 'facts'? Remember your biased opinion is not a 'fact'. Ohterwise you may leave yourself open to a highly warranted b1tch slapping  ;D ;D BigOl is another denier of reality. forgiven namaste Post  the supporting evidence and Ill be more than happy to become a non-denier. It can't be too hard to show where these chinese investors are getting 2.5% loans from aussie banks or where most of the major share holders of aour mining companies are foreigners and not Australian super funds. I want to beleive you, but until you provide the evidence it is impossible to do so. I can provide you with the following regarding Bobby's claims about the banks. No doubt you will find some excuse for why its all BS too; THE SHAREHOLDER STEPHEN MAYNE (who I think you will know of) Ever since federal and state governments privatised various public sector banks in the 1990s, Australians have increasingly suffered the world's most expensive banking system. Skyrocketing transaction fees, the compulsory superannuation gravy train and a near quadrupling of residential mortgages to almost $1 trillion have helped create a profit bonanza for Australian banks like nowhere else in the world. The big four have gone from a combined market capitalisation of below $30 billion in 1992 to almost $300 billion today, even after the global financial crisis. Anyone running a government-licensed business can clearly afford to pay a bit more tax when you consider these latest annual pre-tax profits: Commonwealth Bank: $8.94 billion; Westpac: $8 billion; ANZ: $6.6 billion; NAB: $6.5 billion. With combined pre-tax earnings of $30.1 billion, it is no surprise that our big four banks are so highly valued by the sharemarket. Most modern economies have a couple of banks in their top 10 companies, although the US has none in its top five. In Australia, banks represent four of the top five behind BHP Billiton, which is now the world's third most valuable company. But BHP is making profits from genuinely global operations driven by exports. The bigfour banks just gouge long-suffering Australian consumers and businesses. They might dominate the New Zealand banking market but that is the extent of their global success. Banking is a highly regulated utility business. If the water, gas, electricity or telco industries were pocketing $30 billion annually, consumers would be up in arms. There are two obvious solutions to this situation. First, competition and regulatory intervention could drive down prices and profit margins for bank consumers. That hasn't worked too well in the past, so why not embrace the second option: a banking super profits tax? If a Conservative British prime minister can happily embrace a bank tax to help fix his budget deficit, then why not the same in Australia? Who would need a flood levy if bank shareholders were asked to pay another $2 billion to $3 billion a year through a super profits tax? The British government is expecting to raise an extra £2.6 billion a year from a permanent levy on bank assets that was confirmed only last month. Big bank bosses would no doubt complain, but when you are earning $8 million a year, you can afford to give a bit back. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/should-banks-pay-a-super-profits-tax-20110305-1bih1.html#ixzz3DF772500 Any chance you could highlight the bit where the banks are lending to the chinese at 0.25 % I can't seem to find it or where it says the the major share holders of Australian mining companies are foreigners You know since you went to all the trouble of providing the evidence that booby is stating a 'fact'

Perhaps you might also want me to research the correct times one should use a semicolon as opposed to a full stop or a comma. I think you know the answer to your questions. But go on playing the denial game if you wish, I dont think it convinces anyone genuinely interested in the truth of the matter.   

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:41am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 9:54pm: For those of you interested in discussing this rationally, you might be interested to know that even the multi multi billionair Warren Buffett argues for a progressive taxation system on the grounds that prosperous Americans owe part of their success to other citizens. Have a listen to what he has to say in an interview on CNN Money http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6tBmaUNY0E So how much lower is the top income tax rate in the USA compared to Australia, do well off Australians pay far more tax than those in the USA? What do the low income tax rates in the USA have to do with high income tax rates in Australia?

This thread is about the justifications for taxing the rich more. Read the OP , it will help really.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:57am:

Perhaps you might also want me to research the correct times one should use a semicolon as opposed to a full stop or a comma. I think you know the answer to your questions. But go on playing the denial game if you wish, I dont think it convinces anyone genuinely interested in the truth of the matter.

Maybe you should not have posted in support of booby's post about the 'facts'. But rest assured that I do know the answers which is why I haven't posted any cretinous 'facts' in this matter.


If you want to become the supreme grammar nazi of the board, feel free to research away, but remember everyone else will hold you to the same standard.


As for the truth that is all I asked booby and you to provide, both of you were found wanting.


Next time read what that genius has written before leaping in head first

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:53am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 10:41am: Quote: standard variable interest rate of 1.17 per cent Still a lot lower than our 6.5 %. You are forgiven namaste Ours is not 6.5% but 5.88% and theirs is NOT 0.25% as you stated as a "fact". So you are totally wrong on that point What about foreigners owning most of the shares in our mining companies, want to have a go at that or just concede defeat now? Frig it doesn't take too much effort to do some basic research.

Maybe I got mixed up with the cash rate & the interest rate.

the underlying fact is true:

The Chinese are able to buy our houses at a much reduced rate.


standard variable interest rate of 1.17 per cent

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 11:00am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 10:41am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12th, 2014 at 9:54pm: For those of you interested in discussing this rationally, you might be interested to know that even the multi multi billionair Warren Buffett argues for a progressive taxation system on the grounds that prosperous Americans owe part of their success to other citizens. Have a listen to what he has to say in an interview on CNN Money http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6tBmaUNY0E So how much lower is the top income tax rate in the USA compared to Australia, do well off Australians pay far more tax than those in the USA? What do the low income tax rates in the USA have to do with high income tax rates in Australia? This thread is about the justifications for taxing the rich more. Read the OP , it will help really.

So why are you using low tax rates in the USA to claim rich aussies should pay more tax?

So how much more tax should they pay?
https://www.ato.gov.au/rates/individual-income-tax-rates/

I will be voting Liberal Democrats as their policy will reduce income tax.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 11:11am:

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 10:53am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 10:41am: Quote: standard variable interest rate of 1.17 per cent Still a lot lower than our 6.5 %. You are forgiven namaste Ours is not 6.5% but 5.88% and theirs is NOT 0.25% as you stated as a "fact". So you are totally wrong on that point What about foreigners owning most of the shares in our mining companies, want to have a go at that or just concede defeat now? Frig it doesn't take too much effort to do some basic research. Maybe I got mixed up with the cash rate & the interest rate. the underlying fact is true: The Chinese are able to buy our houses at a much reduced rate. standard variable interest rate of 1.17 per cent

If the chinese banks allow chinese investors to take out a loans for property in a foreign country where  they they have zero jurisdiction or legal recognition, then those banks are idiots, and more than likely only exist in your head.

If those foreign bank issue mortgages to chinese to buy houses in china for a lesser rate then so the f...k what?

It is aforeign country, nothing to do with us.

Stop trying to compare apples with besser blocks

cods wrote on Sep 12^th, 2014 at 6:00pm:

do you own your own home? your own car.. do you have superannuation..? do you have money in the bank...lovely if you have any of those.. we had not one of those when I was growing up..my mum and dad didnt leave me a thing..nup not even a brass farthing as the old saying went..but I will certainly be leaving my kids my home and car and any money that might be left in the bank..a bit more than I ever got... I worked for it. along with my husband we went without to pay for every day things didnt occur to us to say how about the so called RICH paying more so I can pay less...today more people own their own homes than ever before...are they rich????????.. should they be penalised because they put their money into their homes and not down the pub....I dont know any more....in my mums day no one owned their own homes it was unheard of... you sound as if you resent anyone that had frugal parents who invested their money wisely..

Blatant lie. Total rubbish. The exact opposite: Less people than ever before own their own home.

BigOl,

Quote:

If the chinese banks allow chinese investors to take out a loans for property in a foreign country where  they they have zero jurisdiction or legal recognition, then those banks are idiots, and more than likely only exist in your head. If those foreign bank issue mortgages to chinese to buy houses in china for a lesser rate then so the f...k what? It is aforeign country, nothing to do with us. Stop trying to compare apples with besser blocks

Dear BigOl,
The countries I refer to are trying to win an economic war
where they will own as much as possible of Australia & New Zealand.
We will be enslaved to them forever.

Our governments have allowed this to happen.

I merely report this as a humble messenger.

namaste

Bobby. wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 12:54pm:

BigOl, Quote: If the chinese banks allow chinese investors to take out a loans for property in a foreign country where  they they have zero jurisdiction or legal recognition, then those banks are idiots, and more than likely only exist in your head. If those foreign bank issue mortgages to chinese to buy houses in china for a lesser rate then so the f...k what? It is aforeign country, nothing to do with us. Stop trying to compare apples with besser blocks Dear BigOl, The countries I refer to are trying to win an economic war where they will own as much as possible of Australia & New Zealand. We will be enslaved to them forever. Our governments have allowed this to happen. I merely report this as a humble messenger. namaste

Well I for one am grateful to the Messenger, for he speaks truth

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 9:55am:

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:48am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:42am: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:33am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:11am: Sir Bobby, Quote: Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees - & pay themselves high salaries at our expense. Mining companies rape the land & the profits mostly go overseas. The Chinese pay 0.25% interest on a mortgage - we pay 6.5%. Most mining shares are held by overseas investors. These are just facts. Longweekend is in a state of denial. And you would be more than happy to provide the evidence to validate these 'facts'? Remember your biased opinion is not a 'fact'. Ohterwise you may leave yourself open to a highly warranted b1tch slapping  ;D ;D BigOl is another denier of reality. forgiven namaste Post  the supporting evidence and Ill be more than happy to become a non-denier. It can't be too hard to show where these chinese investors are getting 2.5% loans from aussie banks or where most of the major share holders of aour mining companies are foreigners and not Australian super funds. I want to beleive you, but until you provide the evidence it is impossible to do so. I can provide you with the following regarding Bobby's claims about the banks. No doubt you will find some excuse for why its all BS too; THE SHAREHOLDER STEPHEN MAYNE (who I think you will know of) Ever since federal and state governments privatised various public sector banks in the 1990s, Australians have increasingly suffered the world's most expensive banking system. Skyrocketing transaction fees, the compulsory superannuation gravy train and a near quadrupling of residential mortgages to almost $1 trillion have helped create a profit bonanza for Australian banks like nowhere else in the world. The big four have gone from a combined market capitalisation of below $30 billion in 1992 to almost $300 billion today, even after the global financial crisis. Anyone running a government-licensed business can clearly afford to pay a bit more tax when you consider these latest annual pre-tax profits: Commonwealth Bank: $8.94 billion; Westpac: $8 billion; ANZ: $6.6 billion; NAB: $6.5 billion. With combined pre-tax earnings of $30.1 billion, it is no surprise that our big four banks are so highly valued by the sharemarket. Most modern economies have a couple of banks in their top 10 companies, although the US has none in its top five. In Australia, banks represent four of the top five behind BHP Billiton, which is now the world's third most valuable company. But BHP is making profits from genuinely global operations driven by exports. The bigfour banks just gouge long-suffering Australian consumers and businesses. They might dominate the New Zealand banking market but that is the extent of their global success. Banking is a highly regulated utility business. If the water, gas, electricity or telco industries were pocketing $30 billion annually, consumers would be up in arms. There are two obvious solutions to this situation. First, competition and regulatory intervention could drive down prices and profit margins for bank consumers. That hasn't worked too well in the past, so why not embrace the second option: a banking super profits tax? If a Conservative British prime minister can happily embrace a bank tax to help fix his budget deficit, then why not the same in Australia? Who would need a flood levy if bank shareholders were asked to pay another $2 billion to $3 billion a year through a super profits tax? The British government is expecting to raise an extra £2.6 billion a year from a permanent levy on bank assets that was confirmed only last month. Big bank bosses would no doubt complain, but when you are earning $8 million a year, you can afford to give a bit back. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/should-banks-pay-a-super-profits-tax-20110305-1bih1.html#ixzz3DF772500

the first point is that you 'proved' absolutely none of boobys claims.  not a single solitary one.  and another point to keep in mind is that the GFC was caused by slack banking practices the likes of which our banks do not directly participate in.  we have 4 banks in the worlds top ten.  that doesn't happen by accident.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 1:06pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 12:54pm: BigOl, Quote: If the chinese banks allow chinese investors to take out a loans for property in a foreign country where  they they have zero jurisdiction or legal recognition, then those banks are idiots, and more than likely only exist in your head. If those foreign bank issue mortgages to chinese to buy houses in china for a lesser rate then so the f...k what? It is aforeign country, nothing to do with us. Stop trying to compare apples with besser blocks Dear BigOl, The countries I refer to are trying to win an economic war where they will own as much as possible of Australia & New Zealand. We will be enslaved to them forever. Our governments have allowed this to happen. I merely report this as a humble messenger. namaste Well I for one am grateful to the Messenger, for he speaks truth

Thank you - I should charge money for my messages.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 1:09pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:55am: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:48am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:42am: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:33am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 9:11am: Sir Bobby, Quote: Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees - & pay themselves high salaries at our expense. Mining companies rape the land & the profits mostly go overseas. The Chinese pay 0.25% interest on a mortgage - we pay 6.5%. Most mining shares are held by overseas investors. These are just facts. Longweekend is in a state of denial. And you would be more than happy to provide the evidence to validate these 'facts'? Remember your biased opinion is not a 'fact'. Ohterwise you may leave yourself open to a highly warranted b1tch slapping  ;D ;D BigOl is another denier of reality. Post  the supporting evidence and Ill be more than happy to become a non-denier. It can't be too hard to show where these chinese investors are getting 2.5% loans from aussie banks or where most of the major share holders of aour mining companies are foreigners and not Australian super funds. I want to beleive you, but until you provide the evidence it is impossible to do so. I can provide you with the following regarding Bobby's claims about the banks. No doubt you will find some excuse for why its all BS too; THE SHAREHOLDER STEPHEN MAYNE (who I think you will know of) Ever since federal and state governments privatised various public sector banks in the 1990s, Australians have increasingly suffered the world's most expensive banking system. Skyrocketing transaction fees, the compulsory superannuation gravy train and a near quadrupling of residential mortgages to almost $1 trillion have helped create a profit bonanza for Australian banks like nowhere else in the world. The big four have gone from a combined market capitalisation of below $30 billion in 1992 to almost $300 billion today, even after the global financial crisis. Anyone running a government-licensed business can clearly afford to pay a bit more tax when you consider these latest annual pre-tax profits: Commonwealth Bank: $8.94 billion; Westpac: $8 billion; ANZ: $6.6 billion; NAB: $6.5 billion. Rest of this quote deleted to fit in response to LongLiar. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/should-banks-pay-a-super-profits-tax-20110305-1bih1.html#ixzz3DF772500 the first point is that you 'proved' absolutely none of boobys claims.  not a single solitary one.  and another point to keep in mind is that the GFC was caused by slack banking practices the likes of which our banks do not directly participate in.  we have 4 banks in the worlds top ten.  that doesn't happen by accident.

Bobby's claim re Banks: "Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees" -
bigol64's post: "Post  the supporting evidence and Ill be more than happy to become a non-denier" (Underlining mine)
My Post: "I can provide you with the following regarding Bobby's claims about the banks. .... THE SHAREHOLDER STEPHEN MAYNE, Ever since federal and state governments privatised various public sector banks in the 1990s, Australians have increasingly suffered the world's most expensive banking system. and Skyrocketing transaction fees, "

Now did I prove anything to the infamous Longy standard of "Nothing is provable that Longy doesn't like? No I did not
Did I prove it on the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt? No I did not
Did I prove it on the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities? Emmmm, closer but no I don't think so unless no contrary evidence introduced.
Did I do as asked and post supporting evidence re Bobbies claim about the Banks.  Clearly YES!!!
Burden of proof shifts @hole. We have produced credible evidence of our claim re the banks now you go disprove it. Do your own research!!!

The Chinese pay 0.25% interest on a mortgage - we pay 6.5%.
Most mining shares are held by overseas investors.

keep trying...

In 1987 bob hawke sold the very lucrative Govt owned Belconnen Mall to his mate, the ultra capitalist frank lowy of westfields, who immediately raised the rents. Basically he told the shop owners that if they wanted the enormous financial advantage of being a shop owner in the mall they had to pay more for that benefit. No compromise.  Some shop owners stayed, some left but by opening day all shopfronts were filled and doing business.  Was lowy entitled to raise the rents? I bet most people on the right will say “but of course, after all its a free enterprise system right”. Did Lowy raise the rents because he was jealous of the shop owners, or because he wanted to punish them or because he hated them because they were rich. Is Warren Buffett (who advocates more taxes on the rich) a self loathing rich person?  I don’t think so. I think lowy did it because he could and because he knew that the shop owners derived such an enormous benefit from being a shop owner in the mall that they would pay. And they did.  Its that simple. 

And how often is this kind of thing played out in the business community over and over again in relation to every product and every service you care to name.  If I want to sell hamburgers and hope to become rich in the process I have to pay McDonalds a hefty premium to become part of the McDonalds family.  And even if the price is different to different people for the same product (eg the price of CDs and software in Aust compared to Asia) the business community will defend the right of the entrepreneur to do so because if the buyer wants the benefits of that product he/she has to pay.  That’s USER PAYS; that’s capitalism. 

Ahh but alas, the staunch capitalists change their tune when it comes to the enormous benefits they get from being part of the society that is largely responsible for generating their wealth.  Consider the Belconnen Mall again.  The shop owners benefit enormously from that large congregation of people.  But unlike the Mall and totally contrary to their usual capitalist/user pays stance on things they’ll tell you it’s unfair that they should pay a little extra for the fact that its society that has made their incredibly opulent lifestyles possible.

Now I’m not saying that the average middle/lower class person should pay more tax. Indeed, quite the opposite. For over 3 decades now both major political parties have worked industriously to lower taxes for the wealthy and commercial sector and transfer it onto the PAYE taxpayer (the GST is a prime culprit). And at the same time they have mounted a ferocious attack on wages and conditions whilst also implementing policies that would inevitably force Aust wages and conditions lower, such as free trade agreements.  Add to that increasing unemployment and rocketing house prices and the pressure on PAYE tax payers has become enormnous. But not for the commercial sector. In the budget the corporate tax rate is set to fall another 1.5%

Banks get an enormous advantage in this society (see one of my earlier posts below). When times are tough, like now, why shouldn’t they be made to pay a little extra tax. Same with the mining industry and the more wealthy in the community. After all, if it wasn’t for our society they would have nothing.  But you see that's because they put no value on that. That’s why we need to remind them. 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 1:45pm:

Bobby's claim re Banks: "Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees" - bigol64's post: "Post  the supporting evidence and Ill be more than happy to become a non-denier" (Underlining mine) My Post: "I can provide you with the following regarding Bobby's claims about the banks. .... THE SHAREHOLDER STEPHEN MAYNE, Ever since federal and state governments privatised various public sector banks in the 1990s, Australians have increasingly suffered the world's most expensive banking system. and Skyrocketing transaction fees, " Now did I prove anything to the infamous Longy standard of "Nothing is provable that Longy doesn't like? No I did not Did I prove it on the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt? No I did not Did I prove it on the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities? Emmmm, closer but no I don't think so unless no contrary evidence introduced. Did I do as asked and post supporting evidence re Bobbies claim about the Banks.  Clearly YES!!! Burden of proof shifts @hole. We have produced credible evidence of our claim re the banks now you go disprove it. Do your own research!!!

Not even close sunshine, it made no mention of the chinese recieiving 0.25% interests or the shareholder spread for mining companies, both of which I called bullsh1t and ask for evidence.

You did post something while true had nothing at all to do with booby's post.

Doesn't say much for either of you.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 5:25pm:

In 1987 bob hawke sold the very lucrative Govt owned Belconnen Mall to his mate, the ultra capitalist frank lowy of westfields, who immediately raised the rents. Basically he told the shop owners that if they wanted the enormous financial advantage of being a shop owner in the mall they had to pay more for that benefit. No compromise.  Some shop owners stayed, some left but by opening day all shopfronts were filled and doing business.  Was lowy entitled to raise the rents? I bet most people on the right will say “but of course, after all its a free enterprise system right”. Did Lowy raise the rents because he was jealous of the shop owners, or because he wanted to punish them or because he hated them because they were rich. Is Warren Buffett (who advocates more taxes on the rich) a self loathing rich person?  I don’t think so. I think lowy did it because he could and because he knew that the shop owners derived such an enormous benefit from being a shop owner in the mall that they would pay. And they did.  Its that simple.  And how often is this kind of thing played out in the business community over and over again in relation to every product and every service you care to name.  If I want to sell hamburgers and hope to become rich in the process I have to pay McDonalds a hefty premium to become part of the McDonalds family.  And even if the price is different to different people for the same product (eg the price of CDs and software in Aust compared to Asia) the business community will defend the right of the entrepreneur to do so because if the buyer wants the benefits of that product he/she has to pay.  That’s USER PAYS; that’s capitalism.  Ahh but alas, the staunch capitalists change their tune when it comes to the enormous benefits they get from being part of the society that is largely responsible for generating their wealth.  Consider the Belconnen Mall again.  The shop owners benefit enormously from that large congregation of people.  But unlike the Mall and totally contrary to their usual capitalist/user pays stance on things they’ll tell you it’s unfair that they should pay a little extra for the fact that its society that has made their incredibly opulent lifestyles possible. Now I’m not saying that the average middle/lower class person should pay more tax. Indeed, quite the opposite. For over 3 decades now both major political parties have worked industriously to lower taxes for the wealthy and commercial sector and transfer it onto the PAYE taxpayer (the GST is a prime culprit). And at the same time they have mounted a ferocious attack on wages and conditions whilst also implementing policies that would inevitably force Aust wages and conditions lower, such as free trade agreements.  Add to that increasing unemployment and rocketing house prices and the pressure on PAYE tax payers has become enormnous. But not for the commercial sector. In the budget the corporate tax rate is set to fall another 1.5% Banks get an enormous advantage in this society (see one of my earlier posts below). When times are tough, like now, why shouldn’t they be made to pay a little extra tax. Same with the mining industry and the more wealthy in the community. After all, if it wasn’t for our society they would have nothing.  But you see that's because they put no value on that. That’s why we need to remind them.

vomitou left-wing drivel.  all you want is the higher earners to pay more anr more and more and for you to pay less and less and less and get more welfare.  and forget lowry and the billionaires.  your offensively titled thread targets a huge number of people - the people who make your welfare-funded life possible.

you are a greedy sod and btw, truly terrible at making an argument without just quoting a few examples and ignoring the 99.99999% of the rest of the country.

time the poor risked something, created something, toiled over something and  won something , other then a smacking whinging contest ;) ;)

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 5:35pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 1:45pm: Bobby's claim re Banks: "Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees" - bigol64's post: "Post  the supporting evidence and Ill be more than happy to become a non-denier" (Underlining mine) My Post: "I can provide you with the following regarding Bobby's claims about the banks. .... THE SHAREHOLDER STEPHEN MAYNE, Ever since federal and state governments privatised various public sector banks in the 1990s, Australians have increasingly suffered the world's most expensive banking system. and Skyrocketing transaction fees, " Now did I prove anything to the infamous Longy standard of "Nothing is provable that Longy doesn't like? No I did not Did I prove it on the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt? No I did not Did I prove it on the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities? Emmmm, closer but no I don't think so unless no contrary evidence introduced. Did I do as asked and post supporting evidence re Bobbies claim about the Banks.  Clearly YES!!! Burden of proof shifts @hole. We have produced credible evidence of our claim re the banks now you go disprove it. Do your own research!!! Not even close sunshine, it made no mention of the chinese recieiving 0.25% interests or the shareholder spread for mining companies, both of which I called bullsh1t and ask for evidence. You did post something while true had nothing at all to do with booby's post. Doesn't say much for either of you.

Oh right and I'm gong to put any credence in your adjudication of the arguments. Even putting aside your obvious conflict of interest there is the added complication of you being a total imbecile and incapable of making the simplest logical connections.    

aquascoot wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 5:48pm:

time the poor risked something, created something, toiled over something and  won something , other then a smacking whinging contest ;) ;)

Ahh yes aquascoot, the very incarnation of "I'm entitled"

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:02pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 5:35pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 1:45pm: Bobby's claim re Banks: "Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees" - bigol64's post: "Post  the supporting evidence and Ill be more than happy to become a non-denier" (Underlining mine) My Post: "I can provide you with the following regarding Bobby's claims about the banks. .... THE SHAREHOLDER STEPHEN MAYNE, Ever since federal and state governments privatised various public sector banks in the 1990s, Australians have increasingly suffered the world's most expensive banking system. and Skyrocketing transaction fees, " Now did I prove anything to the infamous Longy standard of "Nothing is provable that Longy doesn't like? No I did not Did I prove it on the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt? No I did not Did I prove it on the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities? Emmmm, closer but no I don't think so unless no contrary evidence introduced. Did I do as asked and post supporting evidence re Bobbies claim about the Banks.  Clearly YES!!! Burden of proof shifts @hole. We have produced credible evidence of our claim re the banks now you go disprove it. Do your own research!!! Not even close sunshine, it made no mention of the chinese recieiving 0.25% interests or the shareholder spread for mining companies, both of which I called bullsh1t and ask for evidence. You did post something while true had nothing at all to do with booby's post. Doesn't say much for either of you. Oh right and I'm gong to put any credence in your adjudication of the arguments. Even putting aside your obvious conflict of interest there is the added complication of you being a total imbecile and incapable of making the simplest logical connections.

then how about formulating an actual argument based on more than a few people you don't like.  you don't think high income earners pay enough income tax then state it and make a suggestion on what to change and then defend it.  don't make it a whiny little bit of target practice at a few odd people.

aquascoot wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 5:48pm:

time the poor risked something, created something, toiled over something and  won something , other then a smacking whinging contest ;) ;)

Oh yeah, people are poor because they don't work hard enough, what utter nonsense, there is no correlation between how hard one works and how wealthy they are.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 5:38pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 5:25pm: In 1987 bob hawke sold the very lucrative Govt owned Belconnen Mall to his mate, the ultra capitalist frank lowy of westfields, who immediately raised the rents. Basically he told the shop owners that if they wanted the enormous financial advantage of being a shop owner in the mall they had to pay more for that benefit. No compromise.  Some shop owners stayed, some left but by opening day all shopfronts were filled and doing business.  Was lowy entitled to raise the rents? I bet most people on the right will say “but of course, after all its a free enterprise system right”. Did Lowy raise the rents because he was jealous of the shop owners, or because he wanted to punish them or because he hated them because they were rich. Is Warren Buffett (who advocates more taxes on the rich) a self loathing rich person?  I don’t think so. I think lowy did it because he could and because he knew that the shop owners derived such an enormous benefit from being a shop owner in the mall that they would pay. And they did.  Its that simple.  And how often is this kind of thing played out in the business community over and over again in relation to every product and every service you care to name.  If I want to sell hamburgers and hope to become rich in the process I have to pay McDonalds a hefty premium to become part of the McDonalds family.  And even if the price is different to different people for the same product (eg the price of CDs and software in Aust compared to Asia) the business community will defend the right of the entrepreneur to do so because if the buyer wants the benefits of that product he/she has to pay.  That’s USER PAYS; that’s capitalism.  Ahh but alas, the staunch capitalists change their tune when it comes to the enormous benefits they get from being part of the society that is largely responsible for generating their wealth.  Consider the Belconnen Mall again.  The shop owners benefit enormously from that large congregation of people.  But unlike the Mall and totally contrary to their usual capitalist/user pays stance on things they’ll tell you it’s unfair that they should pay a little extra for the fact that its society that has made their incredibly opulent lifestyles possible. Now I’m not saying that the average middle/lower class person should pay more tax. Indeed, quite the opposite. For over 3 decades now both major political parties have worked industriously to lower taxes for the wealthy and commercial sector and transfer it onto the PAYE taxpayer (the GST is a prime culprit). And at the same time they have mounted a ferocious attack on wages and conditions whilst also implementing policies that would inevitably force Aust wages and conditions lower, such as free trade agreements.  Add to that increasing unemployment and rocketing house prices and the pressure on PAYE tax payers has become enormnous. But not for the commercial sector. In the budget the corporate tax rate is set to fall another 1.5% Banks get an enormous advantage in this society (see one of my earlier posts below). When times are tough, like now, why shouldn’t they be made to pay a little extra tax. Same with the mining industry and the more wealthy in the community. After all, if it wasn’t for our society they would have nothing.  But you see that's because they put no value on that. That’s why we need to remind them.  vomitou left-wing drivel.  all you want is the higher earners to pay more anr more and more and for you to pay less and less and less and get more welfare.  and forget lowry and the billionaires.  your offensively titled thread targets a huge number of people - the people who make your welfare-funded life possible. you are a greedy sod and btw, truly terrible at making an argument without just quoting a few examples and ignoring the 99.99999% of the rest of the country.

I'm pleased it upset you.  When you come back with an intelligent rebuttal I'll respond.   

Kytro wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:13pm:

aquascoot wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 5:48pm: time the poor risked something, created something, toiled over something and  won something , other then a smacking whinging contest ;) ;) Oh yeah, people are poor because they don't work hard enough, what utter nonsense, there is no correlation between how hard one works and how wealthy they are.

there is SOME correlation, but it is weak.  you can work hard and still be poor and you can work rarely and still be rich.  but generally, more effort brings more reward. Generally.

I love this quote: 'the harder I work, the luckier I get!'

Kytro wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:13pm:

aquascoot wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 5:48pm: time the poor risked something, created something, toiled over something and  won something , other then a smacking whinging contest ;) ;) Oh yeah, people are poor because they don't work hard enough, what utter nonsense, there is no correlation between how hard one works and how wealthy they are.

Yeah there is an argument that people are poor because they aare lazy, but the main reason is that they are stupid, combine that with being lazy and a cradle to grave welfare system and you got a typical day down the dole office.

Pity self respect is something you earn and not part of your welfare hand out.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 1:09pm:

the first point is that you 'proved' absolutely none of boobys claims.  not a single solitary one.  and another point to keep in mind is that the GFC was caused by slack banking practices the likes of which our banks do not directly participate in.  we have 4 banks in the worlds top ten.  that doesn't happen by accident.

So how come the government had to guarantee depositors money and how come NAB and Westpac had to be bailed out by the Federal Reserve ?


Quote:

NAB and Westpac’s Secret Bailout Revealed It’s time for an apology. No, not from your editor. We’re always right, so there’s no need to apologise [wink]. Instead the apology needs to come from the Australian mainstream financial press. The same financial press that told you Australia’s banks were strong. That Australia had the best prudential regulation in the world. That Australian banks were different to all those dirty foreign banks. But an apology also needs to come from the banks who themselves claimed things were different here. And that Australia’s banks didn’t have the same solvency problems as US and European banks. Why do they need to apologise? Well, two years after the global financial markets collapsed, a secret bailout of two of Australia’s biggest banks has been revealed. This is pretty big news. Or rather, you’d think it would be pretty big news. But as you can imagine there’s almost uniform silence from the banks and the mainstream press. Shortly after we sent you yesterday’s Money Morning we decided to do a bit of fishing around on the US Federal Reserve website. You see, earlier that morning the Fed had released some pretty hot material, and we wanted to see what it contained. What we found shocked us. Although it really shouldn’t have, because we knew the claims about the Australian banking system being strong and robust were complete lies anyway. In fact, so shocking is this revelation that we considered sending you a Money Morning special edition yesterday afternoon. But we didn’t. We’re fed up of giving the mainstream scoops which they then claim as their own. Instead we thought we’d wait to see if the Australian mainstream press picked up the story first. Surprisingly they have. But not with any enthusiasm. And hardly with what you’d call any effort. Probably because they’re a bit sheepish about the fact the banks and regulators have made fools of them. I’ll provide you with the link to the one story on it in a moment. So excited were we to see how the mainstream had handled this story we did something we normally never do – enthusiastically open the Australian Financial Review (AFR)....

http://www.moneymorning.com.au/20101203/nab-and-westpacs-secret-bailout-revealed.html

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:18pm:

Kytro wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:13pm: aquascoot wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 5:48pm: time the poor risked something, created something, toiled over something and  won something , other then a smacking whinging contest ;) ;) Oh yeah, people are poor because they don't work hard enough, what utter nonsense, there is no correlation between how hard one works and how wealthy they are. Yeah there is an argument that people are poor because they aare lazy, but the main reason is that they are stupid, combine that with being lazy and a cradle to grave welfare system and you got a typical day down the dole office. Pity self respect is something you earn and not part of your welfare hand out.

that is a bit simplistic. BUT if you are lazy you will tend to be poor.  if you don't work and don't have a job, likewise.  but if you study, go without and work hard you will generally do well.  Uf you are prepared to put in the risk of your own business you may de quite well or even get legitimately rich.  but lazy will pretty much always give you poverty

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:22pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:18pm: Kytro wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:13pm: aquascoot wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 5:48pm: time the poor risked something, created something, toiled over something and  won something , other then a smacking whinging contest ;) ;) Oh yeah, people are poor because they don't work hard enough, what utter nonsense, there is no correlation between how hard one works and how wealthy they are. Yeah there is an argument that people are poor because they aare lazy, but the main reason is that they are stupid, combine that with being lazy and a cradle to grave welfare system and you got a typical day down the dole office. Pity self respect is something you earn and not part of your welfare hand out. that is a bit simplistic. BUT if you are lazy you will tend to be poor.  if you don't work and don't have a job, likewise.  but if you study, go without and work hard you will generally do well.  Uf you are prepared to put in the risk of your own business you may de quite well or even get legitimately rich.  but lazy will pretty much always give you poverty

You can be industrious and thick as pig sh1t and pretty much get nowhere in life.

I think stupidity has a greater effect on self reliance than effort, work smart not hard and all that. But a combination of both is an absolute garuntee of a life in the dole queue.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:22pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:18pm: Kytro wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:13pm: aquascoot wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 5:48pm: time the poor risked something, created something, toiled over something and  won something , other then a smacking whinging contest ;) ;) Oh yeah, people are poor because they don't work hard enough, what utter nonsense, there is no correlation between how hard one works and how wealthy they are. Yeah there is an argument that people are poor because they aare lazy, but the main reason is that they are stupid, combine that with being lazy and a cradle to grave welfare system and you got a typical day down the dole office. Pity self respect is something you earn and not part of your welfare hand out. that is a bit simplistic. BUT if you are lazy you will tend to be poor.  if you don't work and don't have a job, likewise.  but if you study, go without and work hard you will generally do well.  Uf you are prepared to put in the risk of your own business you may de quite well or even get legitimately rich.  but lazy will pretty much always give you poverty

Mr. Beast United, can you give the poor devils some advice about sobriety?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:08pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:02pm: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 5:35pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 1:45pm: Bobby's claim re Banks: "Banks rip off customers with high interest rates & fees" - bigol64's post: "Post  the supporting evidence and Ill be more than happy to become a non-denier" (Underlining mine) My Post: "I can provide you with the following regarding Bobby's claims about the banks. .... THE SHAREHOLDER STEPHEN MAYNE, Ever since federal and state governments privatised various public sector banks in the 1990s, Australians have increasingly suffered the world's most expensive banking system. and Skyrocketing transaction fees, " Now did I prove anything to the infamous Longy standard of "Nothing is provable that Longy doesn't like? No I did not Did I prove it on the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt? No I did not Did I prove it on the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities? Emmmm, closer but no I don't think so unless no contrary evidence introduced. Did I do as asked and post supporting evidence re Bobbies claim about the Banks.  Clearly YES!!! Burden of proof shifts @hole. We have produced credible evidence of our claim re the banks now you go disprove it. Do your own research!!! Not even close sunshine, it made no mention of the chinese recieiving 0.25% interests or the shareholder spread for mining companies, both of which I called bullsh1t and ask for evidence. You did post something while true had nothing at all to do with booby's post. Doesn't say much for either of you. Oh right and I'm gong to put any credence in your adjudication of the arguments. Even putting aside your obvious conflict of interest there is the added complication of you being a total imbecile and incapable of making the simplest logical connections.     then how about formulating an actual argument based on more than a few people you don't like.  you don't think high income earners pay enough income tax then state it and make a suggestion on what to change and then defend it.  don't make it a whiny little bit of target practice at a few odd people.

Again, have a look at the OP.  That's what this thread is about and that's what I'm interested in discussing.  Do you agree with the 3 principles I have set out. First you say no, then you say yes but really angry (so no one knows what your really saying) and always posing these absurd exaggerated distortions of what is said and attribute ridiculous motives and then bog the thread down on minutiae about whether there has been sufficient proof submitted about percentages of this and percentages that.  Address the 3 principles I have set out in the OP. Tell me why you agree with each or disagree with each'. Let Bobby deal with bigol64 (hes not having any trouble from what I can tell) and we can have a useful discussion

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:27pm:

You can be industrious and thick as pig sh1t and pretty much get nowhere in life. I think stupidity has a greater effect on self reliance than effort, work smart not hard and all that. But a combination of both is an absolute garuntee of a life in the dole queue.

That depends on your circumstances. If you inherit the money, for example and it's managed for you, then you may avoid that fate. Alternatively your family may feel responsible and keep bailing you out.

Where people are in life is driven mostly by circumstances, people don't just "decide" to be lazy and stupid.

Kytro wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:13pm:

aquascoot wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 5:48pm: time the poor risked something, created something, toiled over something and  won something , other then a smacking whinging contest ;) ;) Oh yeah, people are poor because they don't work hard enough, what utter nonsense, there is no correlation between how hard one works and how wealthy they are.

youre wasting valuable time whinging instead of innovating ;)

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:22pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:18pm: Kytro wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:13pm: aquascoot wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 5:48pm: time the poor risked something, created something, toiled over something and  won something , other then a smacking whinging contest ;) ;) Oh yeah, people are poor because they don't work hard enough, what utter nonsense, there is no correlation between how hard one works and how wealthy they are. Yeah there is an argument that people are poor because they aare lazy, but the main reason is that they are stupid, combine that with being lazy and a cradle to grave welfare system and you got a typical day down the dole office. Pity self respect is something you earn and not part of your welfare hand out. that is a bit simplistic. BUT if you are lazy you will tend to be poor.  if you don't work and don't have a job, likewise.  but if you study, go without and work hard you will generally do well.  Uf you are prepared to put in the risk of your own business you may de quite well or even get legitimately rich.  but lazy will pretty much always give you poverty

so people who chisel money out of suckers by flipping properties work really hard do they :D LOL

Australia is a magnet for those sorts of uber hard workers :D LOL

They are such productive people :D LOL

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:05pm:

aquascoot wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 5:48pm: time the poor risked something, created something, toiled over something and  won something , other then a smacking whinging contest ;) ;) Ahh yes aquascoot, the very incarnation of "I'm entitled"

im always fascinated how the poor attack the rich.
its truly bizarre.
without the pie creators there would be NO pie.
the rich can live without the poor but the poor definitely cant live without the rich.

it also is fascinating how the poor are abusive towards the rich. the rich will be spending all their wealth , at some stage, and they could well spend it on the poor if the poor would just act grateful and be nice.

smart poor people recognise the importance of befriending the rich .
the stupid ones (as big ol rightly points out ) attack the rich and then seem bewildered when the rich dont want to share.  the angry poor, show little social intelligence by doing this

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:27pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:22pm: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:18pm: Kytro wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:13pm: aquascoot wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 5:48pm: time the poor risked something, created something, toiled over something and  won something , other then a smacking whinging contest ;) ;) Oh yeah, people are poor because they don't work hard enough, what utter nonsense, there is no correlation between how hard one works and how wealthy they are. Yeah there is an argument that people are poor because they aare lazy, but the main reason is that they are stupid, combine that with being lazy and a cradle to grave welfare system and you got a typical day down the dole office. Pity self respect is something you earn and not part of your welfare hand out. that is a bit simplistic. BUT if you are lazy you will tend to be poor.  if you don't work and don't have a job, likewise.  but if you study, go without and work hard you will generally do well.  Uf you are prepared to put in the risk of your own business you may de quite well or even get legitimately rich.  but lazy will pretty much always give you poverty You can be industrious and thick as pig sh1t and pretty much get nowhere in life. I think stupidity has a greater effect on self reliance than effort, work smart not hard and all that. But a combination of both is an absolute garuntee of a life in the dole queue.

you have a point.  you still need to have a modicum of skill as well, but effort and hard work will get you further than sheer talent.  when you have both however, you can really boom!

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:52pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:27pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:22pm: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:18pm: Kytro wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:13pm: aquascoot wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 5:48pm: time the poor risked something, created something, toiled over something and  won something , other then a smacking whinging contest ;) ;) Oh yeah, people are poor because they don't work hard enough, what utter nonsense, there is no correlation between how hard one works and how wealthy they are. Yeah there is an argument that people are poor because they aare lazy, but the main reason is that they are stupid, combine that with being lazy and a cradle to grave welfare system and you got a typical day down the dole office. Pity self respect is something you earn and not part of your welfare hand out. that is a bit simplistic. BUT if you are lazy you will tend to be poor.  if you don't work and don't have a job, likewise.  but if you study, go without and work hard you will generally do well.  Uf you are prepared to put in the risk of your own business you may de quite well or even get legitimately rich.  but lazy will pretty much always give you poverty You can be industrious and thick as pig sh1t and pretty much get nowhere in life. I think stupidity has a greater effect on self reliance than effort, work smart not hard and all that. But a combination of both is an absolute garuntee of a life in the dole queue. you have a point.  you still need to have a modicum of skill as well, but effort and hard work will get you further than sheer talent.  when you have both however, you can really boom!

Or not.  So many variables in the mix that the idea that capitalism rewards merit is really absurd.  Have a look at ICAC and the Lib MPs lining up one after the other with stories of corruption and wrong doing.  IMO capitalism is more adept at rewarding dishonesty and deceit then hard work and skill.  I believe the story goes (and your quite welcome to produce evidence to the contrary - I'm not totally vouching for it) that when Bill Gates sold DOS to IBM he didn't have a computer operating system to sell them.  After his meeting he arranged to buy or lease DOS from the creator for a pittance and who of course had no idea that Gates was on-leasing it to IBM.  Regardless of what you think of the morals of that story (and if true I think Gates acted despicably)  I think its fair to say that Gates got more highly rewarded for the skill and hard work that went into creating DOS then the creator did.   

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 7:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:52pm: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:27pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:22pm: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:18pm: Kytro wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:13pm: aquascoot wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 5:48pm: time the poor risked something, created something, toiled over something and  won something , other then a smacking whinging contest ;) ;) Oh yeah, people are poor because they don't work hard enough, what utter nonsense, there is no correlation between how hard one works and how wealthy they are. Yeah there is an argument that people are poor because they aare lazy, but the main reason is that they are stupid, combine that with being lazy and a cradle to grave welfare system and you got a typical day down the dole office. Pity self respect is something you earn and not part of your welfare hand out. that is a bit simplistic. BUT if you are lazy you will tend to be poor.  if you don't work and don't have a job, likewise.  but if you study, go without and work hard you will generally do well.  Uf you are prepared to put in the risk of your own business you may de quite well or even get legitimately rich.  but lazy will pretty much always give you poverty You can be industrious and thick as pig sh1t and pretty much get nowhere in life. I think stupidity has a greater effect on self reliance than effort, work smart not hard and all that. But a combination of both is an absolute garuntee of a life in the dole queue. you have a point.  you still need to have a modicum of skill as well, but effort and hard work will get you further than sheer talent.  when you have both however, you can really boom! Or not.  So many variables in the mix that the idea that capitalism rewards merit is really absurd.  Have a look at ICAC and the Lib MPs lining up one after the other with stories of corruption and wrong doing.  IMO capitalism is more adept at rewarding dishonesty and deceit then hard work and skill.  I believe the story goes (and your quite welcome to produce evidence to the contrary - I'm not totally vouching for it) that when Bill Gates sold DOS to IBM he didn't have a computer operating system to sell them.  After his meeting he arranged to buy or lease DOS from the creator for a pittance and who of course had no idea that Gates was on-leasing it to IBM.  Regardless of what you think of the morals of that story (and if true I think Gates acted despicably)  I think its fair to say that Gates got more highly rewarded for the skill and hard work that went into creating DOS then the creator did.

again... just more examples and no clear-cut CONCEPTS


and Gates sold DOS to IBM after IBM was rebuffed by another idiotic O/S writer (DR/DOS or CP/M).  Gates put on the blue suit, got the job and then bought the product.  he took risk and worked hard.

unlike IMFULLOFIT and so many other complainers.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 7:16pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 7:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:52pm: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:27pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:22pm: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:18pm: Kytro wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:13pm: aquascoot wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 5:48pm: time the poor risked something, created something, toiled over something and  won something , other then a smacking whinging contest ;) ;) Oh yeah, people are poor because they don't work hard enough, what utter nonsense, there is no correlation between how hard one works and how wealthy they are. Yeah there is an argument that people are poor because they aare lazy, but the main reason is that they are stupid, combine that with being lazy and a cradle to grave welfare system and you got a typical day down the dole office. Pity self respect is something you earn and not part of your welfare hand out. that is a bit simplistic. BUT if you are lazy you will tend to be poor.  if you don't work and don't have a job, likewise.  but if you study, go without and work hard you will generally do well.  Uf you are prepared to put in the risk of your own business you may de quite well or even get legitimately rich.  but lazy will pretty much always give you poverty You can be industrious and thick as pig sh1t and pretty much get nowhere in life. I think stupidity has a greater effect on self reliance than effort, work smart not hard and all that. But a combination of both is an absolute garuntee of a life in the dole queue. you have a point.  you still need to have a modicum of skill as well, but effort and hard work will get you further than sheer talent.  when you have both however, you can really boom! Or not.  So many variables in the mix that the idea that capitalism rewards merit is really absurd.  Have a look at ICAC and the Lib MPs lining up one after the other with stories of corruption and wrong doing.  IMO capitalism is more adept at rewarding dishonesty and deceit then hard work and skill.  I believe the story goes (and your quite welcome to produce evidence to the contrary - I'm not totally vouching for it) that when Bill Gates sold DOS to IBM he didn't have a computer operating system to sell them.  After his meeting he arranged to buy or lease DOS from the creator for a pittance and who of course had no idea that Gates was on-leasing it to IBM.  Regardless of what you think of the morals of that story (and if true I think Gates acted despicably)  I think its fair to say that Gates got more highly rewarded for the skill and hard work that went into creating DOS then the creator did.    again... just more examples and no clear-cut CONCEPTS and Gates sold DOS to IBM after IBM was rebuffed by another idiotic O/S writer (DR/DOS or CP/M).  Gates put on the blue suit, got the job and then bought the product.  he took risk and worked hard. unlike IMFULLOFIT and so many other complainers.

Yes exactly what I was saying. The system didn't reward the skill and hard work that went into creating the product that ushered in the home computer age. It went to the shifty guy (you know, like the suited corrupt Liberal MP guys fronting before ICAC) who cheated the creator of his hard work (it really is the story of capitalism all over).

And its significant that you characterize the person who created DOS (the product that ushered in the home computer age) as an idiotic O/S writer and Gates as the one who worked hard because this is another oft used tactic of capitalism; always demean the other person's contribution and overstate your own and that way you appear entitled when you clearly are not. 

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 7:16pm:

and Gates sold DOS to IBM after IBM was rebuffed by another idiotic O/S writer (DR/DOS or CP/M).  Gates put on the blue suit, got the job and then bought the product.  he took risk and worked hard. unlike IMFULLOFIT and so many other complainers.

Yes the unemployable leftists will never be happy until you buy them a house and Ferrari, they are too lazy to work for anything it is always gimme gimme gimme.

I wonder if these leftists think Gates should be doing more, did he have to do this or should he have sat on his ass like these leftists-
www.gatesfoundation.org

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 7:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 7:16pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 7:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:52pm: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:27pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:22pm: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:18pm: Kytro wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:13pm: aquascoot wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 5:48pm: time the poor risked something, created something, toiled over something and  won something , other then a smacking whinging contest ;) ;) Oh yeah, people are poor because they don't work hard enough, what utter nonsense, there is no correlation between how hard one works and how wealthy they are. Yeah there is an argument that people are poor because they aare lazy, but the main reason is that they are stupid, combine that with being lazy and a cradle to grave welfare system and you got a typical day down the dole office. Pity self respect is something you earn and not part of your welfare hand out. that is a bit simplistic. BUT if you are lazy you will tend to be poor.  if you don't work and don't have a job, likewise.  but if you study, go without and work hard you will generally do well.  Uf you are prepared to put in the risk of your own business you may de quite well or even get legitimately rich.  but lazy will pretty much always give you poverty You can be industrious and thick as pig sh1t and pretty much get nowhere in life. I think stupidity has a greater effect on self reliance than effort, work smart not hard and all that. But a combination of both is an absolute garuntee of a life in the dole queue. you have a point.  you still need to have a modicum of skill as well, but effort and hard work will get you further than sheer talent.  when you have both however, you can really boom! Or not.  So many variables in the mix that the idea that capitalism rewards merit is really absurd.  Have a look at ICAC and the Lib MPs lining up one after the other with stories of corruption and wrong doing.  IMO capitalism is more adept at rewarding dishonesty and deceit then hard work and skill.  I believe the story goes (and your quite welcome to produce evidence to the contrary - I'm not totally vouching for it) that when Bill Gates sold DOS to IBM he didn't have a computer operating system to sell them.  After his meeting he arranged to buy or lease DOS from the creator for a pittance and who of course had no idea that Gates was on-leasing it to IBM.  Regardless of what you think of the morals of that story (and if true I think Gates acted despicably)  I think its fair to say that Gates got more highly rewarded for the skill and hard work that went into creating DOS then the creator did.    again... just more examples and no clear-cut CONCEPTS and Gates sold DOS to IBM after IBM was rebuffed by another idiotic O/S writer (DR/DOS or CP/M).  Gates put on the blue suit, got the job and then bought the product.  he took risk and worked hard. unlike IMFULLOFIT and so many other complainers. Yes exactly what I was saying. The system didn't reward the skill and hard work that went into creating the product that ushered in the home computer age. It went to the shifty guy (you know, like the suited corrupt Liberal MP guys fronting before ICAC) who cheated the creator of his hard work (it really is the story of capitalism all over). And its significant that you characterize the person who created DOS (the product that ushered in the home computer age) as an idiotic O/S writer and Gates as the one who worked hard because this is another oft used tactic of capitalism; always demean the other person's contribution and overstate your own and that way you appear entitled when you clearly are not.

Gates sought a market, bought a product and onsold it.  its called BUSINESS.  you don't seem to have any idea what it is.


and still. you cant articulate concepts, merely examples.  you are just jealous, that is all. a real thinker would propose an alternative.  a jealous wanker does what YOU do.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 7:16pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 7:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:52pm: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:27pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:22pm: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:18pm: Kytro wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 6:13pm: aquascoot wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 5:48pm: time the poor risked something, created something, toiled over something and  won something , other then a smacking whinging contest ;) ;) Oh yeah, people are poor because they don't work hard enough, what utter nonsense, there is no correlation between how hard one works and how wealthy they are. Yeah there is an argument that people are poor because they aare lazy, but the main reason is that they are stupid, combine that with being lazy and a cradle to grave welfare system and you got a typical day down the dole office. Pity self respect is something you earn and not part of your welfare hand out. that is a bit simplistic. BUT if you are lazy you will tend to be poor.  if you don't work and don't have a job, likewise.  but if you study, go without and work hard you will generally do well.  Uf you are prepared to put in the risk of your own business you may de quite well or even get legitimately rich.  but lazy will pretty much always give you poverty You can be industrious and thick as pig sh1t and pretty much get nowhere in life. I think stupidity has a greater effect on self reliance than effort, work smart not hard and all that. But a combination of both is an absolute garuntee of a life in the dole queue. you have a point.  you still need to have a modicum of skill as well, but effort and hard work will get you further than sheer talent.  when you have both however, you can really boom! Or not.  So many variables in the mix that the idea that capitalism rewards merit is really absurd.  Have a look at ICAC and the Lib MPs lining up one after the other with stories of corruption and wrong doing.  IMO capitalism is more adept at rewarding dishonesty and deceit then hard work and skill.  I believe the story goes (and your quite welcome to produce evidence to the contrary - I'm not totally vouching for it) that when Bill Gates sold DOS to IBM he didn't have a computer operating system to sell them.  After his meeting he arranged to buy or lease DOS from the creator for a pittance and who of course had no idea that Gates was on-leasing it to IBM.  Regardless of what you think of the morals of that story (and if true I think Gates acted despicably)  I think its fair to say that Gates got more highly rewarded for the skill and hard work that went into creating DOS then the creator did.    again... just more examples and no clear-cut CONCEPTS and Gates sold DOS to IBM after IBM was rebuffed by another idiotic O/S writer (DR/DOS or CP/M).  Gates put on the blue suit, got the job and then bought the product.  he took risk and worked hard. unlike IMFULLOFIT and so many other complainers.

You're wrong about CP/M. IBM decided to sell CP/M-86 and MSDOS at the same time with a 5 to 1 premium on CP/M-86 vs MS-DOS. Needless to say MS-DOS won in the market place simply because it was a fifth of the price of its competitor CP/M-86. IBM killed off CP/M and not its idiotic O/S writer !!

You need to get your facts right old man ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLVbSjDq0DE