Australian Politics Forum - More Public Money for Private Education

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #150 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:25pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:06pm:

so stil no justification for massively increasing income taxes yet?

Forget your class war distraction, Longy...

My argument relates to RESTORING a semblance of progressivity into a tax system that was cynically and recklessly bastardised, in a manner that was contrary to all reasonable socio-economic measures.

The fact remains, that the high-end tax cuts and other WEALTHfare rorts of the Howardian Era (and to a slightly lesser extent by the Labs since) were fiscally-reckless in the extreme!

Yet, Libs have the temerity to cry foul over the inevitable budget black-whole results of their own Party's fiscal time-bombs!

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #151 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:27pm

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:07pm:

||Currently, by my latest calcs, those on around $175K are benefitting annually to tune of about the equivalent of the single rate of Aged Pension (comparing individual tax rates of FY11 with FY01). That's not a bad handout to the elite, for doing nothing new - and it certainly outweighs the recent changes to means-testing of Private Health Insurance Rebate and pissy indexation of FTB-A, eh!?
||

interesting but highly irrelevant esp since you arnt using CPI-adjusted figures.

LOL, Longy...feel free to try to explain your position, by CPI and/or comparing minimum, median and average wages from each of the
relevant tax years - but, you will find that: by no objective measure, have the changes in tax thresholds and rates progressively reflected changes in living costs or incomes in Australia, over the past decade or quarter century - FACT! Those changes have been cynically based on elitist dogma and/or political convenience - FACT!

Either way, be sure to also justify same in the equally relevant context, of the Libs' (and Mellie's) confected outrage over post-2007 FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICITS and DEBT, ta!

hard to be 'confected'. howard had zero debt and surplus. Swan has record debt and record deficit. it is really quite clear and indisputable. there may be reasons to explain it but it doesnt change the fact - except for socialists.

but back to tax scales... stil waiting for your logical support of the 60% level and where you think it should apply. Quick Hint: place it about $20K above your earning level so you wont be affected and so those you hate will.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:32pm by longweekend58 »

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #152 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:29pm

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:06pm:

so stil no justification for massively increasing income taxes yet?

Forget your class war distraction, Longy...

My argument relates to RESTORING a semblance of progressivity into a tax system that was cynically and recklessly bastardised, in a manner that was contrary to all reasonable socio-economic measures.

The fact remains, that the high-end tax cuts and other WEALTHfare rorts of the Howardian Era (and to a slightly lesser extent by the Labs since) were fiscally-reckless in the extreme!

Yet, Libs have the temerity to cry foul over the inevitable budget black-whole results of their own Party's fiscal time-bombs!

try it without the outrage and justify yourself. make an actual non-hysterical, non- flagwaving case. I'm available to be convinced, but banners and mock outrage leave me yawning.

MAKE YOUR CASE!

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #153 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:31pm

||My argument relates to RESTORING a semblance of progressivity into a tax system that was cynically and recklessly bastardised, in a manner that was contrary to all reasonable socio-economic measures. ||

that makes the assumption that the previous high tax rates were good as opposed to the current lower rates. MAKE YOUR CASE

and as a matter of point, 'progressivity' isnt removed just because you dont like the rate of increase. our rates start at 15 and go to 45%. that is progressive by any definition of the word.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #154 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:37pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:24pm:

what exactly (and i do mean EXACTLY) is your problem with tax cuts that are clearly and obviously affordable and have in part contributed in taking this country from a moribund economy to a spectacular one? why have ludicrously high income taxes when govt is running at a surplus? And you have still failed - and repeatedly so - to explain the rationale behind the 60% level that you lust after, other than to inflict some kind of twisted financial pain on a segment of society that you loathe. we dont need it, we dont want it and it is counter-productive to every economic indicator to raise taxes to the punitive level.

so are we going to see a fact based argument from you or just more of your 60s drug-induced paranoia?

LOL, ol' Man...unlike you, I was an infant in the 60's...

What is fundamentally socio-economically wrong, with re-introducing the 60% highest marginal tax rate, at say, $250K (or $500K with 50% at $250K)!?

Do you still subscribe to that debunked self-contradictory nonsense, that goes to the efect that: high income people will strive less if their marginal taxes increase - but that higher wages will stifle the economy because they don't encourage those at the other end of the scale to strive more (despite the fact that higher disposable incomes at the lower end increase consumption and thereby feed the tentacle-up effect)!?

FFS, do you think that the world's ageing billionaires continue to play the corporate field because they need more money!?!?!?! Is is not the case, that most of them are hooked on competing and winning the game of life at all costs!?

Meantime, if you and Mellie et al are so concerned about Govt Debt and Deficit, then restoring progressive taxation (that ought never have been allowed to become so regressive in the first instance) is an obvious and socio-economically responsible way to go...

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #155 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:42pm

||What is fundamentally socio-economically wrong, with re-introducing the 60% highest marginal tax rate, at say, $250K (or $500K with 50% at $250K)!?||

what is so RIGHT about it? in an economy that can pay its own way, what is thr purpose? and given that the amount raised by the few people in that income range is not enough to pay for even a small ALP screwed up program what is the point?

your argument lacks a genuine reason other than 'coz I want to'. there really need to be a genuine reason for it. Im all for taxes and benefits reflecting our economic circumstances so that soemtiems taxes actually DO need to go up. but you're not talking about that. how about we add your 60% level in but add 5% to everyone else's tax scale? is that ok by you or is it somehoe different because YOU might be affecterd?

Your motivation for this is all very obvious and everyone seems to see it but you.

make your case. explain why it should happen in the absence of ANY fiscal need.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Equitist Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9632 NSW	Re: More Public Money for Private Education Reply #156 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:45pm Yo Longy et al I have unilaterally decided, that this tangent is far too important to our nation's future, to hide under a petty private education thread - so I intend to create a new one... I shall cross-post the links in due course...
Back to top	Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer! IP Logged

Equitist Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9632 NSW	Re: More Public Money for Private Education Reply #157 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:47pm PS Ol' Man Longy, have you not discovered how the quote and other nifty forum buttons work!?
Back to top	Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer! IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: More Public Money for Private Education Reply #158 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:47pm id settle for you justifying yourself even once using non-hysterical and logical points of view.
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: More Public Money for Private Education Reply #159 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:48pm Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:47pm: PS Ol' Man Longy, have you not discovered how the quote and other nifty forum buttons work!? another communist issue you have... personal choice of expression.
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #160 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 5:29pm

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:45pm:

Yo Longy et al

I have unilaterally decided, that this tangent is far too important to our nation's future, to hide under a petty private education thread - so I intend to create a new one...

I shall cross-post the links in due course...

Done: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279955932/0#1

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #161 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 7:07pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:27pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:07pm:

||Currently, by my latest calcs, those on around $175K are benefitting annually to tune of about the equivalent of the single rate of Aged Pension (comparing individual tax rates of FY11 with FY01). That's not a bad handout to the elite, for doing nothing new - and it certainly outweighs the recent changes to means-testing of Private Health Insurance Rebate and pissy indexation of FTB-A, eh!?
||

interesting but highly irrelevant esp since you arnt using CPI-adjusted figures.

LOL, Longy...feel free to try to explain your position, by CPI and/or comparing minimum, median and average wages from each of the
relevant tax years - but, you will find that: by no objective measure, have the changes in tax thresholds and rates progressively reflected changes in living costs or incomes in Australia, over the past decade or quarter century - FACT! Those changes have been cynically based on elitist dogma and/or political convenience - FACT!

Either way, be sure to also justify same in the equally relevant context, of the Libs' (and Mellie's) confected outrage over post-2007 FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICITS and DEBT, ta!

hard to be 'confected'. howard had zero debt and surplus. Swan has record debt and record deficit. it is really quite clear and indisputable. there may be reasons to explain it but it doesnt change the fact - except for socialists.

but back to tax scales... stil waiting for your logical support of the 60% level and where you think it should apply. Quick Hint: place it about $20K above your earning level so you wont be affected and so those you hate will.

Hey, Longy, weren't you on about indexation earlier today - surely that must apply to Federal Debts and Deficits too!?

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #162 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 7:47pm

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 7:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:27pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:07pm:

||Currently, by my latest calcs, those on around $175K are benefitting annually to tune of about the equivalent of the single rate of Aged Pension (comparing individual tax rates of FY11 with FY01). That's not a bad handout to the elite, for doing nothing new - and it certainly outweighs the recent changes to means-testing of Private Health Insurance Rebate and pissy indexation of FTB-A, eh!?
||

interesting but highly irrelevant esp since you arnt using CPI-adjusted figures.

LOL, Longy...feel free to try to explain your position, by CPI and/or comparing minimum, median and average wages from each of the
relevant tax years - but, you will find that: by no objective measure, have the changes in tax thresholds and rates progressively reflected changes in living costs or incomes in Australia, over the past decade or quarter century - FACT! Those changes have been cynically based on elitist dogma and/or political convenience - FACT!

Either way, be sure to also justify same in the equally relevant context, of the Libs' (and Mellie's) confected outrage over post-2007 FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICITS and DEBT, ta!

hard to be 'confected'. howard had zero debt and surplus. Swan has record debt and record deficit. it is really quite clear and indisputable. there may be reasons to explain it but it doesnt change the fact - except for socialists.

but back to tax scales... stil waiting for your logical support of the 60% level and where you think it should apply. Quick Hint: place it about $20K above your earning level so you wont be affected and so those you hate will.

Hey, Longy, weren't you on about indexation earlier today - surely that must apply to Federal Debts and Deficits too!?

absolutely. but i defy you and even your own brand of curious statistics to turn zero debt into anything else using CPI figures.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

mellie

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 8142
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #163 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 7:53pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:42pm:

||What is fundamentally socio-economically wrong, with re-introducing the 60% highest marginal tax rate, at say, $250K (or $500K with 50% at $250K)!?||

what is so RIGHT about it? in an economy that can pay its own way, what is thr purpose? and given that the amount raised by the few people in that income range is not enough to pay for even a small ALP screwed up program what is the point?

your argument lacks a genuine reason other than 'coz I want to'. there really need to be a genuine reason for it. Im all for taxes and benefits reflecting our economic circumstances so that soemtiems taxes actually DO need to go up. but you're not talking about that. how about we add your 60% level in but add 5% to everyone else's tax scale? is that ok by you or is it somehoe different because YOU might be affecterd?

Your motivation for this is all very obvious and everyone seems to see it but you.

make your case. explain why it should happen in the absence of ANY fiscal need.

Valid question.

But don't hang by your neck longweekend, I doubt the leftid will kindly elaborate on this issue for you....

Back to top

All together now Labor voters.......&&&&lap-tops, pink-bats refugees and Clunker-cars&&&&insurance.AES256

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #164 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 7:55pm

mellie wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 7:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 4:42pm:

||What is fundamentally socio-economically wrong, with re-introducing the 60% highest marginal tax rate, at say, $250K (or $500K with 50% at $250K)!?||

what is so RIGHT about it? in an economy that can pay its own way, what is thr purpose? and given that the amount raised by the few people in that income range is not enough to pay for even a small ALP screwed up program what is the point?

your argument lacks a genuine reason other than 'coz I want to'. there really need to be a genuine reason for it. Im all for taxes and benefits reflecting our economic circumstances so that soemtiems taxes actually DO need to go up. but you're not talking about that. how about we add your 60% level in but add 5% to everyone else's tax scale? is that ok by you or is it somehoe different because YOU might be affecterd?

Your motivation for this is all very obvious and everyone seems to see it but you.

make your case. explain why it should happen in the absence of ANY fiscal need.

Valid question.

But don't hang by your neck longweekend, I doubt the leftid will kindly elaborate on this issue for you....

this has moved to anoher thread so as to avoid answring this difficult question. nemesis usually does it. she waves her extreme socialist ideology in the breeze, justifies none of it with facts or logic then runs away until another time comes around to lamblast anyone with the temerity to do well without living on welfare.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged