Australian Politics Forum - The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates

Swagman Gold Member Offline Beware of cheap imitations...... Posts: 15095 Illawarra NSW Gender:	Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates Reply #30 - Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:16pm Dnarever wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 8:59pm: Looks like an identical issue to me ? That speaks volumes.... It'd maybe be close to being the same issue if the Govt legislated that the prices of all products & services were to be doubled on Sundays. Why just limit it to the price of Labour?
Back to top	IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59376
Here
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #31 - Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:43pm

Swagman wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:16pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 8:59pm:

Looks like an identical issue to me ?

That speaks volumes.... Cheesy

It'd maybe be close to being the same issue if the Govt legislated that the prices of all products & services were to be doubled on Sundays.

Why just limit it to the price of Labour?

I read it as a comparison between Property and newly constructed property it was unclear if you meant to be comparing to penalty rates where if course it would be a different thing ?

Back to top

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #32 - Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:44pm

Swagman wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 7:26pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

Sure. People look at the PHI without rebates and say, "hey it's too expensive, going to avoid it and find alternatives". Of course, with rebates it now looks ok - but that's because tax payers are subsidising and passing it directly to PHI companies for profit. Without rebates, PHI would have to market better and compete by lowering their prices since they can't rely on tax payers to stump up part of the costs.

Good try but it's not artificially setting a fixed price for PHI.

As for being subsidized by the taxpayer it's the opposite. A rebate is a return on tax already paid.

The more people privately insured the less pressure on the public system. Different issue entirely.

stunspore wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

As for houses. The combination of neg gearing and CGT discount means that you can afford to gear up to recover money invested. For home buyers needing a place to live, a home is primary somewhere to live. Any profit is something to consider at a far longer term than the average investor. The neg gearing allows either moving a person's taxable income to something where middle class welfare can happen, or recoup a sizeable income from house price rise with capital gains discount.
While the government supports these 2 tax advantages, house prices are subjected to a larger influence by investors and hence house prices are artificially higher from the higher demand. Not many countries have these types of tax advantages. Probably not even the U.S, which Swag wants Australia to become.

I agree that property losses should not be allowed to be off set against wages and salaries income, unless perhaps it's for newly constructed properties.

Again it's a different issue entirely.

Why not. The property gains are included with wages and salaries quick smart.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59376
Here
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #33 - Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:52pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:44pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 7:26pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

Sure. People look at the PHI without rebates and say, "hey it's too expensive, going to avoid it and find alternatives". Of course, with rebates it now looks ok - but that's because tax payers are subsidising and passing it directly to PHI companies for profit. Without rebates, PHI would have to market better and compete by lowering their prices since they can't rely on tax payers to stump up part of the costs.

Good try but it's not artificially setting a fixed price for PHI.

As for being subsidized by the taxpayer it's the opposite. A rebate is a return on tax already paid.

The more people privately insured the less pressure on the public system. Different issue entirely.

stunspore wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

As for houses. The combination of neg gearing and CGT discount means that you can afford to gear up to recover money invested. For home buyers needing a place to live, a home is primary somewhere to live. Any profit is something to consider at a far longer term than the average investor. The neg gearing allows either moving a person's taxable income to something where middle class welfare can happen, or recoup a sizeable income from house price rise with capital gains discount.
While the government supports these 2 tax advantages, house prices are subjected to a larger influence by investors and hence house prices are artificially higher from the higher demand. Not many countries have these types of tax advantages. Probably not even the U.S, which Swag wants Australia to become.

I agree that property losses should not be allowed to be off set against wages and salaries income, unless perhaps it's for newly constructed properties.

Again it's a different issue entirely.

Why not. The property gains are included with wages and salaries quick smart.

Yep that is true but you should understand that well balanced factual argument is not well accepted here.

Back to top

IP Logged

stunspore Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5097 Gender:	Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates Reply #34 - Feb 20^th, 2016 at 10:42pm Ok Swag... Government does have the ability to limit the price rise of PHI as well. The fact is the government can directly affect prices directly - which is the same as wages. You might think it is different. It isn't.
Back to top	IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85443
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #35 - Feb 20^th, 2016 at 11:22pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:52pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:44pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 7:26pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

Sure. People look at the PHI without rebates and say, "hey it's too expensive, going to avoid it and find alternatives". Of course, with rebates it now looks ok - but that's because tax payers are subsidising and passing it directly to PHI companies for profit. Without rebates, PHI would have to market better and compete by lowering their prices since they can't rely on tax payers to stump up part of the costs.

Good try but it's not artificially setting a fixed price for PHI.

As for being subsidized by the taxpayer it's the opposite. A rebate is a return on tax already paid.

The more people privately insured the less pressure on the public system. Different issue entirely.

stunspore wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

As for houses. The combination of neg gearing and CGT discount means that you can afford to gear up to recover money invested. For home buyers needing a place to live, a home is primary somewhere to live. Any profit is something to consider at a far longer term than the average investor. The neg gearing allows either moving a person's taxable income to something where middle class welfare can happen, or recoup a sizeable income from house price rise with capital gains discount.
While the government supports these 2 tax advantages, house prices are subjected to a larger influence by investors and hence house prices are artificially higher from the higher demand. Not many countries have these types of tax advantages. Probably not even the U.S, which Swag wants Australia to become.

I agree that property losses should not be allowed to be off set against wages and salaries income, unless perhaps it's for newly constructed properties.

Again it's a different issue entirely.

Why not. The property gains are included with wages and salaries quick smart.

Yep that is true but you should understand that well balanced factual argument is not well accepted here.

But they are not taxed wholly as profit... CG permits a percentage to escape taxation, after all losses have already received a tax deduction. Hardly fair, is it?

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

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #36 - Feb 21^st, 2016 at 7:09am

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 11:22pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:52pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:44pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 7:26pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

Sure. People look at the PHI without rebates and say, "hey it's too expensive, going to avoid it and find alternatives". Of course, with rebates it now looks ok - but that's because tax payers are subsidising and passing it directly to PHI companies for profit. Without rebates, PHI would have to market better and compete by lowering their prices since they can't rely on tax payers to stump up part of the costs.

Good try but it's not artificially setting a fixed price for PHI.

As for being subsidized by the taxpayer it's the opposite. A rebate is a return on tax already paid.

The more people privately insured the less pressure on the public system. Different issue entirely.

stunspore wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

As for houses. The combination of neg gearing and CGT discount means that you can afford to gear up to recover money invested. For home buyers needing a place to live, a home is primary somewhere to live. Any profit is something to consider at a far longer term than the average investor. The neg gearing allows either moving a person's taxable income to something where middle class welfare can happen, or recoup a sizeable income from house price rise with capital gains discount.
While the government supports these 2 tax advantages, house prices are subjected to a larger influence by investors and hence house prices are artificially higher from the higher demand. Not many countries have these types of tax advantages. Probably not even the U.S, which Swag wants Australia to become.

I agree that property losses should not be allowed to be off set against wages and salaries income, unless perhaps it's for newly constructed properties.

Again it's a different issue entirely.

Why not. The property gains are included with wages and salaries quick smart.

Yep that is true but you should understand that well balanced factual argument is not well accepted here.

But they are not taxed wholly as profit... CG permits a percentage to escape taxation, after all losses have already received a tax deduction. Hardly fair, is it?

When have losses ever been taxed.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59376
Here
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #37 - Feb 21^st, 2016 at 8:55am

crocodile wrote on Feb 21^st, 2016 at 7:09am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 11:22pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:52pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:44pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 7:26pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

Sure. People look at the PHI without rebates and say, "hey it's too expensive, going to avoid it and find alternatives". Of course, with rebates it now looks ok - but that's because tax payers are subsidising and passing it directly to PHI companies for profit. Without rebates, PHI would have to market better and compete by lowering their prices since they can't rely on tax payers to stump up part of the costs.

Good try but it's not artificially setting a fixed price for PHI.

As for being subsidized by the taxpayer it's the opposite. A rebate is a return on tax already paid.

The more people privately insured the less pressure on the public system. Different issue entirely.

stunspore wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

As for houses. The combination of neg gearing and CGT discount means that you can afford to gear up to recover money invested. For home buyers needing a place to live, a home is primary somewhere to live. Any profit is something to consider at a far longer term than the average investor. The neg gearing allows either moving a person's taxable income to something where middle class welfare can happen, or recoup a sizeable income from house price rise with capital gains discount.
While the government supports these 2 tax advantages, house prices are subjected to a larger influence by investors and hence house prices are artificially higher from the higher demand. Not many countries have these types of tax advantages. Probably not even the U.S, which Swag wants Australia to become.

I agree that property losses should not be allowed to be off set against wages and salaries income, unless perhaps it's for newly constructed properties.

Again it's a different issue entirely.

Why not. The property gains are included with wages and salaries quick smart.

Yep that is true but you should understand that well balanced factual argument is not well accepted here.

But they are not taxed wholly as profit... CG permits a percentage to escape taxation, after all losses have already received a tax deduction. Hardly fair, is it?

When have losses ever been taxed.

Please don't type that too loud - if the politicians hear we will be in trouble.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 139800 Gender:	Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates Reply #38 - Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:14pm Swagman wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 11:53am: Compulsory outside the market 'penalty' rates are a major cause of unemployment. Incorrect. Been debunked a dozen times. Employers won't hire more workers to do the same amount of work.
Back to top	IP Logged

Swagman Gold Member Offline Beware of cheap imitations...... Posts: 15095 Illawarra NSW Gender:	Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates Reply #39 - Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:53pm greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:14pm: Employers won't hire more workers to do the same amount of work ...because Gweggery says so.....
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 139800 Gender:	Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates Reply #40 - Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:55pm Swagman wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:53pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:14pm: Employers won't hire more workers to do the same amount of work ...because Gweggery says so..... Because history says so. Penalty rates don't cause unemployment.
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139800
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #41 - Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:57pm

Swagman wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 11:53am:

The thousands of unemployed "retail and hospitality workers" would be much better able to make ends meet if they had a job.....penalty rates are keeping them out of one....Unions such as United Voice and The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association are keeping them in poverty... Sad

1. Penalty rates don't keep people out of jobs.

2. Why would a Union want less potential members?

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #42 - Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:57pm

Swagman wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:53pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:14pm:

Employers won't hire more workers to do the same amount of work

...because Gweggery says so..... Roll Eyes

of course they wont, what a stupid argument. Why on earth would a business deplete their increased profits by hiring staff they dont need? You have obviously never worked your own business. Business is about making money.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dsmithy70 Gold Member Offline ire futuis vobismetipsis Posts: 13147 Newy Gender:	Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates Reply #43 - Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 1:07pm Sums it up pretty well.
Back to top	12728801_1713234042254629_5316760963577111742_n.jpg (47 KB \| 36 ) REBELLION is not what most people think it is. REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself. Gavin Nascimento IP Logged

Swagman

Gold Member

Offline

Beware of cheap imitations......

Posts: 15095
Illawarra NSW
Gender: male

Re: The Attack On Weekend Penalty Rates
Reply #44 - Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 1:33pm

.....if a business can increase production without increasing its operating costs it is more competitive, will sell more product and naturally employ more people as it expands.

Anything that decreases operating costs without decreasing sales will make a business more competitive.

That's what businesses do. They expand in order to make more money. Expanding successful businesses employ more people.

Compulsory outside the market 'penalty' rates do the opposite. That is why they are a cause of unemployment.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:55pm:

Because history says so

It says nothing of the sort.

History shows that low unemployment and higher wage growth are a factor of profitable and efficient businesses not inefficient uncompetitive ones.

Why does the RB decrease interest rates to try and boost economic activity? It's not only to free up extra money in the hands of people with home mortgages, it is also to reduce business operating costs.

ian wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:57pm:

Why on earth would a business deplete their increased profits by hiring staff they dont need?.

In order to expand, produce more, sell more and make even more profit Mr Business Guru. Roll Eyes

ian wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:57pm:

You have obviously never worked your own business. Business is about making money

Yes, of course it is, but businesses don't make money by being uncompetitive.

Penalty rates, set outside the market are a business retardant.

Paying someone double for the same production output is DECREASING the businesses ability to make a profit. Decreasing profits and decreasing efficiency will result in higher unemployment.

And History DOES show that!

Back to top

IP Logged