Australian Politics Forum - Show us the alternatives says Morrison

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #90 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:44am

Dnarever wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 8:58pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:50am:

stunspore wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:39pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 3:49am:

stunspore wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 2:19am:

Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not.
Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie".

You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger". After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off? No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that.

Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.

Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair. Businesses benefit from:
- educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not)
- better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers
- security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force)
- better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives)

Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake. Every entity benefits from these. They all should pay. You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough.

As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.

Well said. And it is fair to have those who can to pay more. We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing.

And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times.

A person on 160k can afford to apply tax deductions that a 40k wouldn't have. And in any case, does this result in a person on 40k with enough for basic cost of living?

I won't argue is the appropriateness of progressive taxation. There is a whole series of fors and against on many a website.
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Progressive_tax_vs._flat_tax as an example.

It would be up to each individual to weigh the merits of each argument/reason based on their values. Having dealth with this topic before, it seems pointless to rehash the same arguments and expect people to change sides. The best I can do is to ensure people have a relook at the debate and reconsider their values.

To me it isn't the 160k paying more based on percentage fairness argument. Though not religious but there is a parable from Jesus that said that a poor woman who donated 1 coin from a purse that became empty did more than a rich man who donated a many a coins - because the woman paid more based on percentage of wealth.

To me it is about does a person on 40k able to have access to quality education, water, electricity, food and shelter, and social mobility without severe disadvantage? If that isn't possible then that's a problem that can be solved through money/taxation.

Rubbish. What tax deductions do you think exist for PAYG earners? there are very, very few and they apply to EVERYONE

High earners have the option to use some of them.

A high earner can divert pre tax Dollars into superannuation. They can also invest and save money both tax free and non GST. People earning $40K can do none of this type of thing. They pay all their tax and are their entire wage is subject to GST when spent. There is no salary sacrifice and no investments or negative gearing etc. Work related expenses are much more basic if at all.

The guy on $160K has a tax consultant (deductable expense in itself) who will be advising on tax minimisation.

The guy on $40K is probably doing his tax online with no real deductions.

Poor diddums! Want another cry? How horrible (not to mention damned obvious) that higher earners have more money. How terrible they may invest some.

Maybe you should have studied more and worked harder - like they did.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 75097 Gender:	Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison Reply #91 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:48am
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59186
Here
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #92 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 8:29am

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:53am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:56pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 3:49am:

stunspore wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 2:19am:

Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not.
Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie".

You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger". After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off? No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that.

Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.

Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair. Businesses benefit from:
- educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not)
- better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers
- security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force)
- better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives)

Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake. Every entity benefits from these. They all should pay. You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough.

As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.

Well said. And it is fair to have those who can to pay more. We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing.

And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times.

Quote:

0 – $18,200

Nil

$18,201 – $37,000

19c for each $1 over $18,200

$37,001 – $80,000

$3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000

$80,001 – $180,000

$17,547 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000

$180,001 and over

$54,547 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

He pays 20 times as much.

Its a bit under 10 X.

'only' ten times? You think this changes the tenor of the argument in any way? And all you have to do is add just a little bit of the welfare than the lower paid receives into the figures and suddenly it becomes more like 50 times or 100 times or possibly undefined because the lower paid pays ZERO net tax.

You think this changes the tenor of the argument in any way?

It shows that you just pulled a random number that was off the mark by about 100% out of the air.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59186
Here
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #93 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 8:41am

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:44am:

Poor diddums! Want another cry? How horrible (not to mention damned obvious) that higher earners have more money. How terrible they may invest some.

Maybe you should have studied more and worked harder - like they did.

You always miss the point that you had made a statement that is clearly shown to be incorrect.

Maria: Quote:

Rubbish. What tax deductions do you think exist for PAYG earners? there are very, very few and they apply to EVERYONE

You originally said this - now you are saying that higher earners do in fact have greater options to minimise their paye tax.

Apparently they apply to everyone but not equally.

Your are making obvious contradictions to your original view.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 59186 Here Gender:	Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison Reply #94 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 9:01am Show us the alternatives says Morrison I doubt that Morrison would be in the job if they had a viable alternative.
Back to top	IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85220
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #95 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 9:17am

Dnarever wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 8:41am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:44am:

Poor diddums! Want another cry? How horrible (not to mention damned obvious) that higher earners have more money. How terrible they may invest some.

Maybe you should have studied more and worked harder - like they did.

You always miss the point that you had made a statement that is clearly shown to be incorrect.

Maria: Quote:

Rubbish. What tax deductions do you think exist for PAYG earners? there are very, very few and they apply to EVERYONE

You originally said this - now you are saying that higher earners do in fact have greater options to minimise their paye tax.

Apparently they apply to everyone but not equally.

Your are making obvious contradictions to your original view.

I thought mania was private school, degreed etc, business abounding around him, but would be applying for the pension? How does that all stack up (hint: troll)....

Just how much money does mania claim to have? I'd say DSP in the backblocks somewhere....

You getta da profit from da society, you pay-a da society in proportion, or you a thief inna night... capisce? Jus' business, you unnderstan'.. but da Oz Mafia don' like dat kinda thing....

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #96 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 9:19am

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 8:15pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:27pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 3:49am:

stunspore wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 2:19am:

Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not.
Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie".

You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger". After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off? No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that.

Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.

Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair. Businesses benefit from:
- educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not)
- better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers
- security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force)
- better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives)

Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake. Every entity benefits from these. They all should pay. You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough.

As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.

Well said. And it is fair to have those who can to pay more. We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing.

And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times.

And if you take CGT concessions, negative gearing, dividend imputation, superannuation concessions and other tax rorts into account (which you never do), some wealthy people pay no tax at all. If the tax burden on the wealthy was so onerous, why is the wealth divide growing?

THE POLITICS OF ENVY. The only politics you are now capable of. You will never be successful while envy is the only thing you bring to the table.

And as usual you make personal attacks when losing the discussion.

In accordance with the zero-tolerance policy, this has been reported.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #97 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 9:31am

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:02am:

The other issue is, the higher you go up the income ladder the declared income becomes a smaller and smaller part of the total income. In the extreme case we had 70 millionaires paying zero tax.

They weren't 70 millionaires paying zero tax. They were 70 people on annual incomes of over a million dollars a year who paid no tax in the 2010-11 financial year. They earned $194 million between them before tax and $82 between them after tax. That is not a typo.

The 70 mega rich who don't pay tax
Quote:

The 70 income millionaires are just the top of the iceberg of perfectly legal tax avoidance ... 2320 taxpayers with declared incomes of more than $100,000 paid no tax. They earned $75 million in wages and salary, and spent the same amount on tax advice. Their total income of $652 million was cut to a combined taxable income of $604,000 - $260 each.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #98 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 5:01pm

Bam wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 9:19am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 8:15pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:27pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 3:49am:

stunspore wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 2:19am:

Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not.
Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie".

You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger". After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off? No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that.

Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.

Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair. Businesses benefit from:
- educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not)
- better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers
- security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force)
- better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives)

Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake. Every entity benefits from these. They all should pay. You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough.

As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.

Well said. And it is fair to have those who can to pay more. We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing.

And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times.

And if you take CGT concessions, negative gearing, dividend imputation, superannuation concessions and other tax rorts into account (which you never do), some wealthy people pay no tax at all. If the tax burden on the wealthy was so onerous, why is the wealth divide growing?

THE POLITICS OF ENVY. The only politics you are now capable of. You will never be successful while envy is the only thing you bring to the table.

And as usual you make personal attacks when losing the discussion.

In accordance with the zero-tolerance policy, this has been reported.

You and greg should get married then you can whine 24/7

Back to top

nowhining_001.jpg (113 KB | 23 )

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #99 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 5:03pm

Bam wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 9:31am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:02am:

The other issue is, the higher you go up the income ladder the declared income becomes a smaller and smaller part of the total income. In the extreme case we had 70 millionaires paying zero tax.

They weren't 70 millionaires paying zero tax. They were 70 people on annual incomes of over a million dollars a year who paid no tax in the 2010-11 financial year. They earned $194 million between them before tax and $82 between them after tax. That is not a typo.

The 70 mega rich who don't pay tax
Quote:

The 70 income millionaires are just the top of the iceberg of perfectly legal tax avoidance ... 2320 taxpayers with declared incomes of more than $100,000 paid no tax. They earned $75 million in wages and salary, and spent the same amount on tax advice. Their total income of $652 million was cut to a combined taxable income of $604,000 - $260 each.

Always nice to pick an extreme example to then try and make a general point. That is why you are such a discredited poster. When you want to make a general point use general examples or else you just end up sounding like this:

Back to top

Envy-650_001.jpg (81 KB | 33 )

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 75097 Gender:	Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison Reply #100 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 5:39pm mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 5:03pm: Always nice to pick an extreme example to then try and make a general point. Except that it's not a one off or an extreme ... that was 70 , and they'll do it each and every year that they can.
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #101 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 6:02pm

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 5:39pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 5:03pm:

Always nice to pick an extreme example to then try and make a general point.

Except that it's not a one off or an extreme ... that was 70
, and they'll do it each and every year that they can.

out of 12 MILLION tax payers. You could win division 2 in powerball with those odds!

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30100
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #102 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 8:03pm

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:44am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 8:58pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:50am:

stunspore wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:39pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 3:49am:

stunspore wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 2:19am:

Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not.
Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie".

You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger". After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off? No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that.

Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.

Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair. Businesses benefit from:
- educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not)
- better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers
- security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force)
- better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives)

Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake. Every entity benefits from these. They all should pay. You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough.

As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.

Well said. And it is fair to have those who can to pay more. We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing.

And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times.

A person on 160k can afford to apply tax deductions that a 40k wouldn't have. And in any case, does this result in a person on 40k with enough for basic cost of living?

I won't argue is the appropriateness of progressive taxation. There is a whole series of fors and against on many a website.
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Progressive_tax_vs._flat_tax as an example.

It would be up to each individual to weigh the merits of each argument/reason based on their values. Having dealth with this topic before, it seems pointless to rehash the same arguments and expect people to change sides. The best I can do is to ensure people have a relook at the debate and reconsider their values.

To me it isn't the 160k paying more based on percentage fairness argument. Though not religious but there is a parable from Jesus that said that a poor woman who donated 1 coin from a purse that became empty did more than a rich man who donated a many a coins - because the woman paid more based on percentage of wealth.

To me it is about does a person on 40k able to have access to quality education, water, electricity, food and shelter, and social mobility without severe disadvantage? If that isn't possible then that's a problem that can be solved through money/taxation.

Rubbish. What tax deductions do you think exist for PAYG earners? there are very, very few and they apply to EVERYONE

High earners have the option to use some of them.

A high earner can divert pre tax Dollars into superannuation. They can also invest and save money both tax free and non GST. People earning $40K can do none of this type of thing. They pay all their tax and are their entire wage is subject to GST when spent. There is no salary sacrifice and no investments or negative gearing etc. Work related expenses are much more basic if at all.

The guy on $160K has a tax consultant (deductable expense in itself) who will be advising on tax minimisation.

The guy on $40K is probably doing his tax online with no real deductions.

Poor diddums! Want another cry? How horrible (not to mention damned obvious) that higher earners have more money. How terrible they may invest some.

Maybe you should have studied more and worked harder - like they did.

Only longloser uses that word and yet maria owns a camry and hubby drives a merc. What happened to the ford Fricken Pathetic Vehicle ? Trade it in did ya Cheesy

LOL

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75097
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #103 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 10:42pm

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 6:02pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 5:39pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 5:03pm:

Always nice to pick an extreme example to then try and make a general point.

Except that it's not a one off or an extreme ... that was 70
, and they'll do it each and every year that they can.

out of 12 MILLION tax payers. You could win division 2 in powerball with those odds!

you could ... but it still wouldn't make you sound any more intelligent.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Bam Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21905 Gender:	Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison Reply #104 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 10:50pm mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 5:01pm: You and greg should get married then you can whine 24/7 Reported. Only a matter of time now before you're gone for good.
Back to top	You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument. IP Logged