astera

I am a liberally-minded person but when I look at Australian history and any major changes in policy and social advancement then most has been done under Labor governments. Now I am not a natural Labor supporter, but I will give them credit where it is due.

the troubadour

Just how has selling out to elites saved the average Australian or Brit butt. That would explain why so many want out of UK. How wages are so low compared to cost of living to many.
Ever fewer can afford to live in their greater cities of London, Sydney and Melbourne, at least with any quality.

That would explain how Aussies mortgage a life to pay for an over inflated house price while watching wages stagnate and other prices rise while all conservatives can do is degrade living standards for average people ever more while enriching the elites. Falling safety nets and a desire to knock down fair work regulations are the name of the game.

History suggests we are where we are due to the unleashing of raw capitalism since the political upheavals of the late 80's and into the 90's when that particular creed felt all opposition had been disposed of and opposition wasn't really an option to be taken seriously.

The mess since then speaks for itself.

the troubadour

Not a single fact as been raised by said poster. Plenty of ideological bias largely created as faulty if not just plain wrong. I do fear the wait will be in vain.

the troubadour

Didn't save but did enrich the elites who are after all the Cons natural leaning support base.

the troubadour

Wow...fact being Lieberal's didn't propose Malaysia and it is the height of cynicism to over look that but support the inhumanity towards people that committed no crime that resulted in that parties alleged moral stance.

They may consider a final solution a sense of justice but most thinking people deplore what happened. The bottom line was that the Lieberals changed stance just as ALP, to appear to Bogan voters and stir up political points on the backs of asylum seekers. Being devoid of real policy.
I do not recall one other nation using asylum seekers as such a political football for obvious reasons due to the tensions stirred up from within.

Far from easy in tax payers expense, bribing of corrupt neighbours breaking non refoulment laws and bringing the system into assisting refugees into question.

But that tends to be the moral bankruptcy Neo Cons thrive on and attempt to turn into a positive. A little like letting the miners of paying their fair share and dropping the carbon tax for short term gain.

A party that deserves a hundred years in the wilderness in that hope of regaining at least some of the Liberal views that they name themselves after.
A degree of humanity may prove a humbling experience to a party that to date shows none.

GarryP

This is still going on?

When you look over history, far right wing governments focus on tearing down and destroying - not building. Building is hard, and you can get it wrong. A wreaking ball is easy to wield, more certain of results.

Now, sometimes clearing a little space can dismantle vested interests and give space for new things to grow - however it's very wasteful. You can't cut your way to greatness; actual achievement needs people to build.

Better if we had a more thoughtful and measured set of leaders - capable of carefully dismantling when needed, such that the pieces can be reused, and that the focus is on having a better world after they've finished.

Say, by dismantling the mining oligarchs and media empires and rebuilding more 'society focused' entities in their space. Rebalancing so the leeches pay a fair share and work for a better future for all.

And if a government isn't there to make society, and the country, better - then it's a failure.

Amazulu

Yep. Modern western socialism (France, UK, Australia etc) has been irrelevant since the 1950s but has still continued to wreck havoc in these countries. Why does it keep coming back then? Because so many in the west live in denial and would rather listen to socialist fairy tales than face reality. The cradle to grave welfare states in place since WW2 have created generations that want it all on a plate without striving for it. So some socialist asshole like Rudd/Hollande/Milliband comes along promising them everything for nothing and they vote for him like sheep

Socialism breaks everything that it touches - as sure as day follows night

Mediocre politics for mediocre people

Bill Shorten? Seriously?

Heaven f**king help us

knockoff nige

Why do so many incredibly successful capitalists enjoy welfare if they believe it's causing havoc? Why does Warren Buffet (someone more qualified than you) say he's benefitting from this welfare but thinks it's wrong?

Welfare shouldn't be required at all but it is. It makes more sense to me to only give it to where it's needed. That doesn't happen. We would all have lower tax rates to our income tax if this welfare to the rich was removed.

Are you against all forms of welfare?

swans

You can dribble as much shite as you like and make up as many of your own 'facts' as you like.Reality is not going to change in the slightest.

The 2 largest companies in the world Apple and exxon,combined value (market cap) of over US$1 trillion,AAPl is 62% owned by mutual funds (super funds) and Exxon 51% owned by mutual funds.The largest of course being Vanguard,Jack Bogle.The man that thought the wealth should be shared and funds should only charge a very small % age.Vanguard are the largest holders of most large US companies,thus the masses are.

I enjoy this laugh,sit on your arse and whine and complain as much as you like.Make up as many bullshit stories as you like and tell as many lies as you like. Refuse to see reality as much as you like.

The directors of Commonwealth bank will still work hard to make you wealthier,Jack Bogle will still work hard to make the masses in the US wealthier.The wealth will still be shared around.

You want more, put your hand in your pocket and buy more of the shares for yourself.

Geordie downunder

Beoz

Enjoyed the wait

post #40 and post #55 for starters. UK and Australian figures respectively. But you do choose to ignore those of course and 249 posts later we are still having the argument that the rich do not pay enough tax.

Sure the Warren Buffets of the world may feel that they have taken tax laws and structured their tax affairs to the own advantage. If this is such an issue for governments then its in their court, both left and right wing to change this. Of course the left will sell this as the right "looking after their mates" - easy argument really - no substance.

But as usual the left are very quick to jump on tax avoidance issues without care only to be tripped up by their own and their party supporters tax avoidance issues

BBC News - Ed Miliband should publish tax documents - Conservative MP

Back in Australia we have our own issues when it comes to tax on the poor. Our shadow treasurer doesn't even know the current tax free threshold but of course, but was more than happy to jump on the current tax topic bandwagon

Chris Bowen struggles to name tax-free threshold during Alan Jones interview

So like all the threads started by troubadour, there are some small issues in small circles, but not exactly systematic across the board, but it does provide some great scare mongering issues for the paranoid left to jump aboard.

knockoff nige

Firstly, I fail to see how I avoided any of those points. Secondly, post 55 wasn't even yours.

Can you confirm whether you beleive tax avoidance by the wealthy exists or not? The top end of town paying 4.2% of all income tax is surely very small when that's where most of the earnings are? Not sure if you're just dismissing what Warren Buffet (a man with more credibility to talk about his than you or I) but the guy accepts he pays less than his fair share. He's not alone. Many successful business men agree with him and beleive they shouldn't be able to find these loopholes. They are legal and no-one is disputing that. But so was slavery in the US in the 1800's. So is concealed carry of handguns in the U.S. If we're doing thibgs wrong, we should change. This isn't an attack on the successful. It's about me paying my way and everyone else paying their way.... when they can afford it.

You need to stop making the assumption that everyone on here plays football politics. You've picked your side and refuse to budge. If I can make an observation, it looks to me like you'd back this government regardless of policy. If they became left wing you'd say they were showing Labour how's it's done. I don't have a side. I disagree with the far right wing government we currently have and I disagreed with the previous governments understanding on what 'rich' is.

Would you agree that if people can afford less they will spend less and being able to afford more means spending more? That should bring us back to the main topic. A GST increase and applied to fresh food and basic necessities means less money will be spent. That's bad news for everyone, including the rich and corporations who need the money flowing.

Beoz

It is when you massage the 4.2% your way to suit your agenda. When you combine it with the 0.01 % of top earners who cover the 4.2% the figure is staggering. Massive. You should be praising the wealthy for the contributions they make.

We should only change for the better of all. If closing what you want to call loopholes serves to make government more money then absolutely. But you have to be very careful not to assume that 100 million Warren Buffett could pay would be more than what could be sacrificed if he chose to move his millions to another country and therefore costing governments more they make from him and his business interests in other areas. Not so black and white now is it. Resentment should never come into it. Governments making money should be the only metric

Sure Nige

I'm undecided on this. GST is pretty low in comparison. Increase seems inevitable. Anyhow its not on the agenda and requires all parties and states to support the concept. Probably will be on the discussion table in the future which again is inevitable. Its a good tax. It treats everyone equally where income tax doesn't.

knockoff nige

Ok so let's say that I pay 5 times what a lower income earner pays in tax. Is that staggering? It looks like it is but it isn't really as I pay a relevant proportion of my earnings as do they. But, what I'm not doing is tax avoidance. I could wrongfully claim some things back in a tax return but that's illegal. I might have a salary sacrifice option at work for a car or a laptop but that's not an option for most people earning less than me.

So, why are the loopholes (you'll need to stop denying they exist) only available to the rich end of town? They can get their payable tax down below 15%. It doesn't matter if that 15% is 100 million. What matters is that we are paying tax at rates applicable to our earnings. The reason for that, and I keep having to say it to you is that we need lower income earners. If we need them, we need the rich to pay the same way everyone else does so we can afford out health cover, education, infrastructure etc.

If Warren Buffet or anyone else declares they are paying less tax and they should be paying more, why exactly would they up and leave if they get taxed more? Also, if what you're saying is that we are held to ransom by the wealthy, then we have a global issue that needs to be fixed. You'd then have to accept that what is occurring now isn't right and is only existing because of a global market that allows money to move around in order to minimise tax. However, if the government are expressing their interest in closing these loopholes, then they accept it is real and they accept it is wrong. They also accept that they can do something about it. Whether they do or don't do something about it is the unanswered question.

The GST is fair if applied correctly. A pensioner paying an extra 10% on fresh food is not equal to a wealthy person paying the same. There is a much bigger hit to the pensioner, obviously. If this is applied to luxury items or tiered to apply more heavily on basic to more luxury items, it would be applied more fairly as it will recognise life style and cost of living as concerns.

GarryP

It always makes me chuckle.

Lies, damn lies and how politicians present statistics.

Whenever a far right winger wants to imply that the rich are overtaxed, it's always "well they provide xx% of the total tax take, aren't they nice". What they never like to mention is how the percentage of disposable income that is tax is much less than that of the poor.

Absolute numbers when the percentage is poor - percentages when the absolute numbers are poor.

And don't you DARE mention the GINI index, or how countries with lower GINI indexes are happier countries. That's socialism that is!!

Beoz

Which topic are we on here? Well lets pick the need for low income earners and high income owners. Ok. Need is strong but lets take that. Ok so the need for the high income earners is satisfied by income tax and the other taxes generated by their wealth. Without it, and lets not forget those figures, you wouldn't have health, infrastructure, and the like. But we do, so what's your point again?