Karnal wrote on Mar 9^th, 2015 at 7:57pm:


no karmal not at all.

thanks to the fact that the cream horses earn so much money (becasue we look after them the best) there is plenty of surplus cash to get a vet out if one of the slow horses breaks a leg.

of course if i gave them all equal care and the cream horses werent encouraged to "be all that they can be" then when the slow ones broke a leg i'd have to get out the shottie .

so lucky for those slow ones that i have a good business model. They understand the correctness of my ideas that they will often say, when offered a cube of sugar or a carrot, "please give it to the cream of the horses boss, our future happiness depends on them"

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 9^th, 2015 at 9:06pm:


how does taking money from productive people and giving it to non productive people boost the economy george.

if you leave it with me i can buy more tractors and grow more food for export dollars.

if you take it and give it to someone on the dole it gets spent on chinese trinkets, foreign cigarette companies and foreign fast food companies.

and i have properties in the city and the bush so i am multi cultural.   i understand how the economy works and centrelink is not a business that earns australia any foreign exchange credits . you do understand that to balance the imports of money to finance ratbag canberra schemes , we do actually have to export something.

how the f*ck does "increasing the dole " provide any sort of boost to productivity.  have you gone completely bonkers.

aquascoot wrote on Mar 9^th, 2015 at 9:15pm:




What is the alternative?

If there is a functioning and sustainable and sustaining welfare system, the money goes around and around. People buy what they need and that supports the businesses that sell to them. It boosts the economy. They pay taxes (gst at least).

Without a sustainable and sustaining welfare system you have an increase in crime, an increase in illiteracy, an increase in child neglect, an increase in homelessness and an increase in the number of people in gaol. All of the above cost society much more than sustainable and sustaining welfare cost.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are not enough jobs to go around and some people are unable to work. This is a basic premise of a capitalist system. It's how capitalism functions best. More workers than work. Keeps it all competitive.

Isn't it best we accommodate reasonably for people who for whatever reason are unable to work?

Again, what is the alternative?

I do not want the alternative in the society i live and pay taxes within.

Karnal wrote on Mar 9^th, 2015 at 11:09pm:



surprisingly, as much as possible I do.

I use the same principle that one uses to train a horse
"make the wrong thing hard and the right thing easy'

a recent example,  distracted daughter 1 had her second car accident (probably fiddling with her make up or the CD player).  daughter 2 always does the "right" thing.

what to do with the $1200 excess.

one must help ones children, they are ones "legacy"

but instead of giving daughter 1 the $1200  (ie making the wrong thing easy) I gave daughter 1 $600 and told her it was only fair to also give daughter 2 $600). this served as a lesson that good behaviour must be rewarded (what we reward we get more of).

My girls understand these principles.


now how should we apply this "scooter-nomics"

well, yes, everyone is entitled to medicare and free education .

but what about things like encouraging the 65 to keep working (which we are told is a good thing).
make this easy...why would you reduce the pension by nearly $1 for every dollar earnt. 
same with the dole, why would you punish someone on the dole by taking away their health care card when they find work.
what about national savings ( a very big problem as we have none), when savings earn interest of 2.5 % why would you tax that and then give a "tax break " to negatively geared investors.

if you build a small business (surely a good thing) why would you tax the capital growth and punish the hard work.

if you are stupid and buy dud shares , why would you reward the stupidity by allowing this to be both negatively geared and written off as a capital loss against other income.

our Canberra based economic system is chock full of cash flows which

1  punish the right thing and
2  reward the wrong thing.

I could go on forever.


why would you give junkies free needles but make diabetic buy theirs at the chemist (when you want to encourage good sugar control).

why would you provide free fillings at public dental hospitals (when the right thing is to clean your teeth) but turn away wisdom teeth cases (which are not the customers fault and result in teeth crowding and fillings down the track).

in so many ways, the knee jerk reaction is usually to throw money at the problem and not think about how to alter the behaviour that lead to the problem.

I can give you one right now.

tax all sugary and fatty foods with an extra GST and use the money to subsidise free fruit and veges for school kids to be available at every public school.
makes economic and moral sense.

aquascoot wrote on Mar 9^th, 2015 at 9:15pm:

Labor productivity is OK. I didn’t mention productivity. Those on the top incomes are being paid $50Bn a year in tax cuts based on rorting super. Stop that, and some of the other rorts, and use some of those dollars saved to boost NewStart. The rich have plenty of discretionary income, will keep spending. The unemployed have zero discretionary income, whatever extra they get will be spent, boosting economic activity.

aquascoot wrote on Mar 9^th, 2015 at 5:30pm:

In other words, your plan is to make the poor pay more and the rich pay less. Is that correct?

A better plan is to gut all the tax concessions that the wealthy use to "minimise" their tax and use the proceeds of that to eliminate the deficit and then reduce tax.

Same for companies - abolish all the unnecessary corporate tax deductions and use the proceeds to reduce the headline company tax rate.

Every unnecessary tax deduction in the tax system only shifts the tax burden onto others. A strong case can be made to simplify the Baroque web of deductions so the tax system is more equitable.

Quote:

Nonsense - they already get the biggest handouts. You don't want a situation where excessive handouts causes a part of the economy to become overheated at the expense of the rest. It's poor policy.

Quote:

You are not an economist. It shows with this rubbish. Do nurses, police or teachers produce anything?

Quote:

More rubbish that only shows you have no qualifications in economics.

Quote:

Conservative nonsense. Rising tides and boats? A poor comparison that is only accurate in a socialist economy. A more accurate analogy for a capitalist society is that the biggest chick gets fed first.

Why do you have such incredible notions about the unemployed? Probably just because you want to feel superior.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2015 at 1:54pm:



heard something yesterday that said there were over 20 000 kids in the USA living in the streets with no shelter, food or water .... this a shocking statistic ...

the worlds number one economy can't even take care of it's kids? and people think this system works?