Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 11:32am:
No you didnt mate, the 13b is the total loss to investors, not the total loss against housing.
Quote:

I have more concern for the massive welfare bill of 168 b which is clearly being rorted by so many rather than hard working people with actual jobs attempting tio legally minimise tax. If we create  a society which supports the work ethic like we used to have then most of our current financial issues in this country will dissapear. All people like you have is negativity towards the hard workers in our country but nothing against the parasites and free loaders. Australia has become a welfare dependent state, expecting hand outs, free houses the list goes on without any expectation of actually working to acheive these things. thats the real issue.

Right, their day jobs, their actual jobs where they work for a living. And you must make a loss to claim a loss. Get it?

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 1:25pm:



Which owner occupiers get slapped with CGT ?  I know I wouldn't want it, but since you are one rent payment off being homeless, capital gains on a home you don't own is no biggie I suppose.


Try an easier subject, this one way beyond your limited intellect. Since pillows also seem to baffle you at times, Im suggesting pencils, HB or not 2HB, what was the question?

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 2:45pm:



So will you be recommending CGT be imposed on home owners as well, or you just want to whinge and b1tch about not getting the write offs?



Like I said this subject is way beyond you.

Quantum wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 11:47am:

Yeah, that sounds about right, it would even be easier to just give the business to the unemployed to run it, may as well, since the employers don't really get any choice. So assign these employees in charge of everything: paying the rent, resolving customer relations, insurance claims/workers compensation, arranging loans, collecting debt, human resources, any bureaucratic government issues, PAYING TAX! - not to forget: BUYING US OUT FIRST, at their OWN Expense.
Oh no, they don't have the money.
Well, how about that, save it and TRY it when you have the money to buy. Just like we did. SAVED IT, by working hard, saving every bit to start this bloody business!!!
fckrs

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:


It's not about need, but about keeping an advantage. Social security is like a clock that doesn't stop. It prevents the poor from being "left behind," but also prevents them from catching up to the rich. If everyone gets the same treatment, everyone will more or less stay where they are. The rich will still be rich. The poor will still be poor. The clock doesn't stop ticking for anyone. Nobody goes backwards.

It's not about need, but about stinginess. The rich always want to stay ahead.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:


Their wealth isn't being redistributed. They are keeping their wealth. Income tax isn't a redistribution of wealth. People with higher gross incomes will always have higher net incomes. Relative inequalities will remain.

Like I have said a number of times in different places, a market-driven system isn't truly objective. Pay grades go up exponentially. An income tax forces the relationship between income and effort/value more or less back into a linear relationship. If people don't like this view, it's because they love money more than the economy itself. If they really cared about the businesses they worked for, they would get a pay cut and stop complaining about taxes.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:


In that case they should cut taxes on businesses and do something about inflated property prices. Allowing people to become rich doesn't actually help the economy anyway. What does help the economy is allowing businesses to become rich.

If I was going to improve the income tax system, I would redirect a portion of income taxes back to the businesses they came from instead of the government -- provided they invest the money in something useful -- like R&D or purchasing capital goods. The government may have less revenue and be poorer, but at least businesses would lose less money.

Surely, a good, loyal employee would love to pay "taxes" to a business rather than a government?

Of course, a huge number of people would hate the idea, from all across the spectrum -- from the high-paid Andrei to the low-paid tradesperson. The unions would hate it. Nobody wants a pay cut.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:


I think they simply made some bad investments there. If they had put their life savings in a bank, this would have been less likely to happen.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:


Is this an attempt to discredit my view?

My view is more like "socialism for the people, capitalism for businesses." That's the way I think it should be. Allowing people to become rich doesn't help the economy. If they lose their job, they should receive the bare minimum required to find another job. Social security doesn't help people become rich, so that's fine with me.

In the meantime, the income tax system should be fixed so that a portion of it goes back to the business if it promises to invest it in something useful. Gross income should just be an ego-booster that says, "Mate, you did a good job there." It shouldn't mean the employee gets to keep the money. Company taxes should be cut for domestically-owned businesses -- ideally right down to zero. R&D and the purchase of capital goods should be subsidised to encourage innovation.

Basically for me, people shouldn't be rich. Businesses should be rich. In an efficient economy, the majority of people are poor and firms are bristling with activity and their coffers are full.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:


I've been listening to their complaints and most of them are for personal gain and self-benefit, not for the benefit of the businesses they serve. It's the "all about me" attitude.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:


Zero? Bob-Jane T-Mart's seems to be doing fine under his son.

Quote:


What is?

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:


Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:


Nope. It's all about maintaining a basic living standard despite not receiving an income from a job. Period.

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:


Wrong. The higher taxes for the rich (49% in some cases) are redistributed by the government through Centrelink to finance welfare payments for the lower socio-economic groups.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:


Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:


Wow. You're a full-blown communist aren't you? What you're advocating here is exactly, and precisely, and ideologically what communism was saying when it first started in Russia.

And it was precisely because no private person was allowed to get rich, that the entire country lived in dire poverty until communism was finally ditched.


Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:


Now I KNOW you're joking.

During the entire Industrial revolution in the UK, the poor buggers who worked in the factories and in the mines had to buy all of their needs from shops run by the companies they worked for.

Result: Their wages were ripped right back off the employees at the company shops ~ leaving them with little more than slave wages for a beer or two on a night off.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:


Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:


Not quite. Many are given false statistics as to the expected income of certain businesses in the local shopping areas.

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:


um ... yes. Well spotted.

It amazes me how many otherwise sensible and hard-working people will put all their financial eggs in the one basket, close to or in their retirement years, buying up a franchise to sell ice cream, or cut keys, or sell bric-a-brac ... and then soon to be seen weeping on ACA or This Day Tonight because there weren't enough customers to sustain the business. And they're forced to live in a caravan park.

Stupidity carries its own punishment.

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:
.

That's Economic Marxism. State-controlled businesses allowed to generate capital for the State coffers ... while the peasants remain on subsistence wages.

My Russian aunt who I lived with for 4 years as a boy, escaped across Siberia to get away from the horrors of Stalin's dictatorship.