longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 7:55pm:



FFS, Bates, ye and me both know that I have posted a range of economic reports (and pre-digested commentaries) over the past couple of years - and therefore that you are misrepresenting me...

As for you, Mellie, you could make some effort to establish facts, rather than misleadingly parrot dishonest Lib propaganda, ta!

Now, I hereby reiterate that I am I am an 'Egalitarian Greenie' (AKA 'Watermelon'), who is concerned that: we in Australia have been conditioned to become a short-term-thinking global 'growth' economy first and a nation second - and that far too little attention has been paid to maintaining our nation's long-term capacity for self-reliance, socio-economic stability and environmental sustainability. 

In the process, we have been subjected to systematic fearmongering and selective disclosure of facts and fed voodoo economics by shameless partisans and self-interested corporativists. It is time that we started to challenge the 'common sense' that holds the majority of Australians back from equitably sharing in our national prosperity and securing a reasonable future of our descendants.

This is my altruistic agenda - not a class war! However, for obvious reasons, I do see that unbridled elitism is a serious threat to our national prospects for achieving long-term stable and sustainable prosperity - for the benefit of ourselves and our descendants. As Longy admits, the LibLabs have access to the budgetary tools necessary to promote my agenda - but they lack the will and courage to do so.

You 'guys' can call me any names you want, but I would appreciate it, if you would at least try to debate the issues and that you refrain from misrepresenting me. I have enough words of my own, without you making others up and putting them in my mouth, ta!

So, let us get back on topic here and elsewhere, eh!?

Getting back to a previous tangent, these wage statistics overwhelmingly show that private sector employers don't pay as well as some might believe...

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6302.0Main+Features1Feb%202010?Op...

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 4:46pm:


The statistician in me would like to refer you to the fact that it is not a comparison between public and private salaries in the same sector but in the entire economy. think about how many minimum wage manufacturing jobs there are in the public sector or how many low paid occupations are in the public service. now if you want to refine your claim back to the orinal one which is the comparison between TEACHERS inthe public vs private sector, then the argument changes. COMPARABLE job comparisons are what we are looking at - not just an overall picture which distorts the answer to the question you are actually asking.

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 4:51pm:


That is not a justification for returning back to it. in fact it is rather lame. given that the govt now normally runs a surplus and low to zero debt (GFC excluding) what possible justification is there in increasing income tax when there is no current shortage of income. Ive said that it sounds more lik just tryign tp punishe taxpayers for earning well. how else would you describe it?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 5:21pm:


Bollox, Longy - you should reconsider your own elitist projecting!

Meantime, I have posted a pertinent article over on the Progressive Taxation thread, an extract of which is below: -


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279955932/60

Quote:



What is sooooo fair, desirable and/or responsible, about lumping 80% of Aussie Taxpayers on a marginal tax rate of 30% or less and the top 3% on a dramatically lower marginal tax rate - at the expense of the rest of us - given that the top 3% had already disproportionately benefitted from the boom times and that the majority had already been disproportionately-affected by the regressive GST!?

Ploise exploin why you support such a regressive flattening of our taxation system!?

||and even with this top 1% graph it is missin gan important statistic. yes, since 1980 the share of the 'pie' by the average person has dropped slightly. However, the 'pie' is now much,much bigger therefore the wealth of the average person has increased dramatically in the same period. so the question you are posing isnt about poverty vs wealth but the 'problem' that a few have done slightly better than others. that makes the real question an 'envy-based' one rather than a sociological/poverty based one.

Bollox, Longy - you should reconsider your own elitist projecting!
||

you'd have more credibility if you answer the post instead of attacking the messenger. I am an analyst and as such tend to pick holes in junk arguments like you are making. MAKE YOUR CASE!

||What is sooooo fair, desirable and/or or responsible about lumping 80% of Aussie Taxpayers on a marginal tax rate of 30% and the top 3% on a dramatically lower marginal tax rate ||

I wil go with pedantic. exactly how else is someone suppose to interpret what you said above?

||Now...need I remind you, that it is you have been incessantly banging on about the 60% marginal tax rate for the past day or so - and I point out that 47% (or 45%) are in fact dramatically lower than 60%...||

I understand your p[roblems with logic - they are all too obvious, but it is YOU who has repeatedly said that the top rate shoudl be 60% and you have not at any stage every constructed a rational or logical argument for it. so far, your total argument is that they 'should' without ever justofying that subjective analysis. now for THE LAST TIME will you attempt to support you absurd envy-based demand or will we all just assume that you are having a baseless whinge?