Australian Politics Forum - More Public Money for Private Education

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #180 - Jul 25^th, 2010 at 5:59pm

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 5:55pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 5:53pm:

||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?

One word, Bates: context!

wow that was a remarkable comeback - with one major problem. context NEVER waters down a basic factual error. stating that people on a 47% marginal rate pay a lower marginal rate than those on a 30% rate is wrong no matter what context you place it in. and the reason I bring it up again is because it explains most of your inability to form a rational logical argument. if you can claim that 47<30 and even try to defend it then there is not much chance you will make a good argument in defence of more complex statistical concepts.

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 #181 - Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:02pm

||You know full well that I wasn't suggesting that the top 3% were on a lower marginal tax rate than the other 80% or 97% (although, as I had previously mentioned, this group is also the one that could most readily take advantage of an effective marginal tax rate of 15% under Howard and Costello's effectively-exclusive Superannuation Tax Concessions scam - and that most of that 80% gained no benefit whatsoever from that flat 15% concession!)...||

except that by your own admission most people are on the 30% rate and also get the 15% rate. so how do people who get the 15% rate NOT get the 15% rate??

even by your standards your logic failures are epic today.

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 #182 - Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:23pm

FFS, Bates - just admit that you had a knee-jerk reaction to my comments, which you would prefer to quote out of context...

PS Hint: check the times on these two related posts by me: -

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

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 4:42pm:

Then if you want people to stop abusing you then perhaps you can answer the very questions that people put to you. you tend to reply to every question with some ideological monologue rathe than an actual answer. For example, you have been asked a million times to explain the rationale behind the 60% tax rate you propose and as yet havent even attempted to do so. so answer it rather than just repeating your flagwaving protest rally talk.

Conversely, Longy, I maintain that there was no valid economic nor social reason, for lowering the top rates so dramatically, whilst tinkering so little at the bottom end - and that it would have been both infinitely fairer and more fiscally responsible to push the existing higher rates out to higher thresholds in the first instance (perhaps inserting others in between)...

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 5:39pm:

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

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 5:01pm:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/08/20/income_gr.jpg

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!

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:

Importantly, the tax relief allows the Government to keep to its goal, operating since the GST package, that more than 80 per cent of taxpayers will continue to face a top marginal tax rate of 30 per cent or less.

It can also boast that by 2006-07 the top marginal rate will apply to only 3 per cent of taxpayers.

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!?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:30pm by Equitist »

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 #183 - Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:24pm

Meantime, back on the Progressive Taxation thread: -

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279955932/60#61

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:15pm:

Quote:

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/
Quote:

Taxable income/Tax on this income

1985–86

$0–$4,594 = Nil

$35,000 and over = $11,346.25 + 60 cents for each $1 over $35,000

2000-01

$1 - $6,000 = Nil

$60,001 and over = $15,580 + 47 cents for each $1 over $60,000

2009–10

0 – $6,000 = Nil

$180,001 and over = $55,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

2010–11

0 – $6,000 = Nil

$180,001 and over = $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

What's right and wrong with the above trends!?

How can it be that the tax-free threshold barely moved in a 1/4 century - and certainly didn't get indexed for inflation - but the threshold for the top marginal rate was dramatically increased and, to add insult to injury to 97% of Australians, the top rate was also dramatically lowered for the elite 3%!?

Now, add to this the dramatic polarisation of income and wealth over the past 1/4 century - and compound the inequity by the introduction of the regressive GST from 2000, the patently inequitable 15% Superannuation Tax Concessions Scam and a range of other effectively-exclusive WEALTHfare handouts....

How is it that we have allowed our pollies to make our income tax and transfer systems so much more regressive!?!?!?!?

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 #184 - Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:25pm

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:23pm:

FFS, Bates - just admit that you had a knee-jerk reaction to my comments, which you would prefer to quote out of context...

nope. there is just no way you can turn that statement into anything other than just plain wrong. but anyhow... how about justifying the reasons for the 60% tax rate? or how about supporting the 'private teachers eran less than public teachers' argument? or a slew of other statements you have made?

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 #185 - Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:29pm

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:24pm:

Meantime, back on the Progressive Taxation thread: -

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279955932/60#61

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:15pm:

Quote:

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/
Quote:

Taxable income/Tax on this income

1985–86

$0–$4,594 = Nil

$35,000 and over = $11,346.25 + 60 cents for each $1 over $35,000

2000-01

$1 - $6,000 = Nil

$60,001 and over = $15,580 + 47 cents for each $1 over $60,000

2009–10

0 – $6,000 = Nil

$180,001 and over = $55,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

2010–11

0 – $6,000 = Nil

$180,001 and over = $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

What's right and wrong with the above trends!?

How can it be that the tax-free threshold barely moved in a 1/4 century - and certainly didn't get indexed for inflation - but the threshold for the top marginal rate was dramatically increased and, to add insult to injury to 97% of Australians, the top rate was also dramatically lowered for the elite 3%!?

Now, add to this the dramatic polarisation of income and wealth over the past 1/4 century - and compound the inequity by the introduction of the regressive GST from 2000, the patently inequitable 15% Superannuation Tax Concessions Scam and a range of other effectively-exclusive WEALTHfare handouts....

How is it that we have allowed our pollies to make our income tax and transfer systems so much more regressive!?!?!?!?

Ever heard of the low-income tax rebate which effectively increase the tax free levlt to $10000 or even as high as $17000? This is what happens when you use statistics selectively - you get the wrong answer. also you have neglected to include govt payments which have massively favoured lower income earners (as they should) to the extent that the effective rate of tax for a family is zero until they earn at least $42000. by any standard that indicates a very significant shift to lower income earners.

so a question for you. do you concede the right for a person to earn more than the average wage? It certainly doesnt seem to sound like it.

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 #186 - Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:33pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:29pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:24pm:

Meantime, back on the Progressive Taxation thread: -

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279955932/60#61

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:15pm:

Quote:

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/
Quote:

Taxable income/Tax on this income

1985–86

$0–$4,594 = Nil

$35,000 and over = $11,346.25 + 60 cents for each $1 over $35,000

2000-01

$1 - $6,000 = Nil

$60,001 and over = $15,580 + 47 cents for each $1 over $60,000

2009–10

0 – $6,000 = Nil

$180,001 and over = $55,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

2010–11

0 – $6,000 = Nil

$180,001 and over = $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

What's right and wrong with the above trends!?

How can it be that the tax-free threshold barely moved in a 1/4 century - and certainly didn't get indexed for inflation - but the threshold for the top marginal rate was dramatically increased and, to add insult to injury to 97% of Australians, the top rate was also dramatically lowered for the elite 3%!?

Now, add to this the dramatic polarisation of income and wealth over the past 1/4 century - and compound the inequity by the introduction of the regressive GST from 2000, the patently inequitable 15% Superannuation Tax Concessions Scam and a range of other effectively-exclusive WEALTHfare handouts....

How is it that we have allowed our pollies to make our income tax and transfer systems so much more regressive!?!?!?!?

Ever heard of the low-income tax rebate which effectively increase the tax free levlt to $10000 or even as high as $17000? This is what happens when you use statistics selectively - you get the wrong answer. also you have neglected to include govt payments which have massively favoured lower income earners (as they should) to the extent that the effective rate of tax for a family is zero until they earn at least $42000. by any standard that indicates a very significant shift to lower income earners.

so a question for you. do you concede the right for a person to earn more than the average wage? It certainly doesnt seem to sound like it.

In terms of disposable incomes, buying capacity and living standards, there is no valid justification for such regressive changes - period!

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 #187 - Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:37pm

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:29pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:24pm:

Meantime, back on the Progressive Taxation thread: -

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279955932/60#61

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:15pm:

Quote:

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/
Quote:

Taxable income/Tax on this income

1985–86

$0–$4,594 = Nil

$35,000 and over = $11,346.25 + 60 cents for each $1 over $35,000

2000-01

$1 - $6,000 = Nil

$60,001 and over = $15,580 + 47 cents for each $1 over $60,000

2009–10

0 – $6,000 = Nil

$180,001 and over = $55,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

2010–11

0 – $6,000 = Nil

$180,001 and over = $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

What's right and wrong with the above trends!?

How can it be that the tax-free threshold barely moved in a 1/4 century - and certainly didn't get indexed for inflation - but the threshold for the top marginal rate was dramatically increased and, to add insult to injury to 97% of Australians, the top rate was also dramatically lowered for the elite 3%!?

Now, add to this the dramatic polarisation of income and wealth over the past 1/4 century - and compound the inequity by the introduction of the regressive GST from 2000, the patently inequitable 15% Superannuation Tax Concessions Scam and a range of other effectively-exclusive WEALTHfare handouts....

How is it that we have allowed our pollies to make our income tax and transfer systems so much more regressive!?!?!?!?

Ever heard of the low-income tax rebate which effectively increase the tax free levlt to $10000 or even as high as $17000? This is what happens when you use statistics selectively - you get the wrong answer. also you have neglected to include govt payments which have massively favoured lower income earners (as they should) to the extent that the effective rate of tax for a family is zero until they earn at least $42000. by any standard that indicates a very significant shift to lower income earners.

so a question for you. do you concede the right for a person to earn more than the average wage? It certainly doesnt seem to sound like it.

In terms of disposable incomes, buying capacity and living standards, there is no valid justification for such regressive changes - period!

nothing more than a banner statement utterly devoid of reason and logic. As a debater you are very disappointing as you have not mounted a logical or rational defence of a single statement you have made. But to debunk the innaccurate statement abover:

1) Disposable incomes are MUCH higher now than in the 80s you long for
2) buying capacity is vastly increased in almost every area except housing - which is a differen issue altogether
3) Living standards are notably higher now than 25 years ago.

so the justification is quite simple. IT WORKED! and on every criteria you specified!

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 #188 - Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:40pm FFS, Longy, affordable accommodation is one of the most crucial and stressful challenges facing the majority of Australians on a daily basis - especially those on below-average incomes!
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 #189 - Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:52pm

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:40pm:

FFS, Longy, affordable accommodation is one of the most crucial and stressful challenges facing the majority of Australians on a daily basis - especially those on below-average incomes!

congratulations. out of that entire rebuttal of your incorrect point of view, you picked up on the ONE thing that has gone backwards in the last 25 years and has nothing whatsover do do with rates of taxation. How about you try and actually SUBSTANTIATE your claims - meaning to substantially support your case not pick and choose a few issues.

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 #190 - Jul 26^th, 2010 at 9:49am so it it the case that Thy refuses to justify her point of view using any actual facts?
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

buzzanddidj

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14178
Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC
Gender: male

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #191 - Jul 29^th, 2010 at 11:12am

THE wealthiest private schools in Australia should disclose income generated from trusts and donations as well as what assets and capital they have on an updated My School website, a leading union has demanded.

Angelo Gavrielatos, the Australian Education Union president, said he wanted the website to publish all current and potential income available to both public and private schools, including private donations and property and financial investments.

He said the total resources at a school's disposal should be known to the wider public, despite a push against publishing this information by the private education sector.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/push-for-private-schools-to-reveal-all-...

Back to top

'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'

- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #192 - Jul 29^th, 2010 at 11:17am

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 11:12am:

THE wealthiest private schools in Australia should disclose income generated from trusts and donations as well as what assets and capital they have on an updated My School website, a leading union has demanded.

Angelo Gavrielatos, the Australian Education Union president, said he wanted the website to publish all current and potential income available to both public and private schools, including private donations and property and financial investments.

He said the total resources at a school's disposal should be known to the wider public, despite a push against publishing this information by the private education sector.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/push-for-private-schools-to-reveal-all-...

Why should any school, public or private, have to publically publish its financial sources? ANd especially POTENTIAL sources? what is that supposed to mean? but what do you expect from and Education Union official whose primary purpose is to support labor and its own agenda. Education actually failes to get on their agenda.

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

Verge Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6329 Gender:	Re: More Public Money for Private Education Reply #193 - Nov 30^th, 2011 at 10:29am Even this one imcrook, already 10 pages too.
Back to top	And why not, if you will permit me; why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me; spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your, country - Abbott with the Garma People Aug 13 IP Logged