Swagman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 12:55pm:


so you did ... sorry, missed it  ... I'm betting you'd be in the minority with that.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 12:33pm:

I doubt it, you have claimed to work in numerous occupations in the past few years.

Quote:

Rubbish - it's the fastest-growing area of health expenditure. Why shouldn't it be trimmed or abolished?

YOUR wish to keep it - not even to touch it - is ideological, and the only way your view would change would be if the Liberal party were to change its view.

Quote:

If they're cash strapped, they would be looking to ditch it regardless. A poor argument.

Quote:

No it doesn't. That's just Liberal-party ideological nonsense without the slightest shred of proof. I notice you haven't posted any links.

Quote:

Ok, let's abolish negative gearing, FBT concessions, capital gains tax concessions, dividend imputation, concessions on superannuation and other similar expenditure. Then we go after all the tax concessions and loopholes that companies use to lower their tax, especially foreign multinationals. Then abolish corporate welfare such as the diesel fuel rebate (but change the law so biodiesel isn't taxed), direct action and other corporate welfare. We could cut nearly $100 billion from the budget without difficulty by cutting all this fat from the top end. We can then use the proceeds of this necessary levelling of the taxation field to eliminate the deficit and pay down debt, and put the rest into some tax cuts, such as lowering the company tax rate to 25% and raising the tax-free threshold to the level of the minimum wage (so all income earners benefit from tax cuts).

Bam wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:18pm:



and tell me what you think the result of all that would be?  do you think it would have zero effect on the economy?  go on. I am serious.  look at all theos policies and tell me if you think any of them would have a negative impact on the economy.

John Smith wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:19pm:



of COURSE he is targetting the 'rich'. do you see a SINGLE  proposal there that is not purely targeted at them?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:24pm:


Australia's richest 1% own more wealth than 60% of population ... so yes, we target the 1%. you want equal when it's time to pay the taxes, but cry whenever some low income earner merely wants to 'equal' wages to any of those in the higher income brackets  ... you can't have it both ways.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:


no, the right have been claiming that for a long time, but no one has ever proven it

Bam wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:23pm:


Not at all, I invited you to table your indirect tax data in Reply# 26 

Swagman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 12:41pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:23pm:


since it was an argument on INCOME TAX and not total tax then you are wrong.

but indirect tax - largely GST - is also predominantly related to income.  Earn more, spend more, pay more GST.  a pretty obvious correlation that few would reject and none could refute.

Like it or not, the majority of taxes are made disproportionately by higher income earners.  Now just to be clear, I don't think that is unfair, but I get rather sick of the denials that it isn't true or that 'the rich' aren't paying their way.

Lets have a taxtion debate based on some actual facts, not ideological wannabe drivel.