Originally Posted by knockoff nige

Since when do corporations not receive welfare? Tax funded assistance is welfare. Of course if you don't agree with that then that explains why you would refuse to answer the question.

Do corporations receive welfare for the purpose of training staff? Sure. Is that available to smaller businesses? Mostly not. If the government want to encourage training, why are they cutting funding to education? Why they are making education easier for the rich and harder for the poor?

We will probably both agree that welfare should go to where it is required and only where it is required. A multibillion dollar company has no claim to it. Do they deserve welfare to become cleaner? Do they deserve welfare for fuel? Do they deserve welfare for anything? Only if they need it. Billions in profit does not qualify.

How much of that 138 billion was by welfare abusers? That was the question I asked. Do you beleive that the young mothers in Western Sydney are claiming for 100 kids each and costing us about 100 billion?

I have no mates in the Labor party but your ignorance doesn't allow you to accept that. You need me to be on the other side as you are so far over to the right you're balancing on the edge. I've always been in favour of a capitalist system that is fair, encourages growth and is available to anyone who wants it. That doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Beoz

I think we have struck a common bond. I have no mates in the labor party either but I had great admiration for the way Bob Hawke could down a yard glass.

ok Green it is. Can only assume so with the way you tried to drag me into your environmental debate with that post. You are on your own there.

Are you trying to lead me down a dark alley about single mothers? Remember I used it in context to your claim about wealthy using legal tax law to effectively make money. Young single mothers who continue to have children as a way of making an income could be morally accused of the same. Of course that claim would be a sweeping generalisation, but that doesn't matter in your book - anything to drag me down a dark alley

Originally Posted by knockoff nige

There will be no dragging anyone down a dark alley no matter how much you ask.

The environment argument is relevant and you side stepped it. We're paying welfare for polluters to change their ways. A reverse carbon tax. You don't need to be a member of the Green Party to want polluters to be responsible for their own mess.

The reason I mentioned the single mothers again is because we can both agree that there is welfare abuse on both ends. At which end is it most costly? Not the welfare but the abuse of it. Labor might find savings of $1.9 billion if they attack corporate tax dodging. I think that's a start but they still have their own agenda in that space. They still need funding. The party system is flawed. That's another topic of conversation though.

Originally Posted by Beoz

Abusers is harsh term when most of us, rich and poor, play within the rules. No doubt you do a tax return and encourage your accountant to find you the most tax relief possible?

Originally Posted by knockoff nige

Abusers was your term if you remember. Playing within the rules is having a child and receiving welfare for it. Abusing the rules is, like you say having several kids because it works out financially. Nothing illegal but it's being used for the wrong purpose.

Personally, I'm incredibly honest with my tax return. I have 1 income and that makes for a very easy if not swift process for me. Abusing it is very common here in Australia and a lot of it is actually illegal. And yes, anyone claiming something they can but shouldn't on a tax return is abuse.

If the rules can be more and more open to interpretation the richer you get, the abuse becomes more acceptable but far more damaging.

So we can agree that welfare should go to those that need it and only those?

Originally Posted by Beoz

Sure but your definition of who needs it is not thought through correctly so I doubt we will ever agree on who needs it.

Originally Posted by knockoff nige

Mate if you are suggesting you have thought any of this through you're not convincing me. Who needs welfare should be discovered. Not doing so means it's welfare for anyone because we don't know enough about their business. Companies should be self sufficient. Assistance should be given to the small guys who need a leg up. On going assistance should not be required.

Do wealthy individuals need superannuation benefits that are not available to you and me?

Interesting that you are now accepting that welfare does go to corporations.

Originally Posted by Beoz

Tax deductions go to corporations. Its a fact that cannot be disputed. Welfare goes to those that need it. I'll take the definition of those who have been in the industry for years over yours thanks.

Do you think those who are wealthier than you are entitled to less supeannuation benefits just because you haven't been as successful financially? I don't. Where would be the incentive to achieve if we were all on the same playing field? Wealth and success should be encouraged. Not discouraged. If you discourage then were all suffer.

Originally Posted by knockoff nige

Welfare is tax assistance full stop. It goes to plenty who do not need it. Direct Action being a very very good example of that. As is fuel rebates. You seem to miss the very obvious point that if a company is making billions, they don't need assistance. Companies should be self sustainable. That's what should be encouraged.

I actually find it ridiculous that you think there should be benefits to the rich in order to encourage to get rich. Like a reward for getting rich. Let's take welfare from the sick and poor to give more to those who have shown us the light in how to get rich. The poor will probably be inspired and the sick will probably be grateful of the hospitals having such worthy winners on their boards. Maybe even those university hopefuls from Western Sydney can just accept that those University places and scholarships should indeed go to the career politicians who have the most important people in Australia in mind, the bank CEO's and billionaire miners.

Rewards for getting rich because getting rich isn't enough. You need your next billion to be much easier for you to get.

Originally Posted by Beoz

Nige you are making up things again to suit your own agenda. I never said anything should be taken from the sick and the poor. I said people should be encouraged to be wealthy.

So what happens when you remove fuel rebates? Transportation costs more right? So leaving the miners, and the direct and indirect industries that hang off this sector out of it because you are prejudice against mining, which would cost that industry well over 2 billion, what would happen to the cost of food? You know the food you, me and the other poor people eat. The very people you are trying to protect in this whole thread?

BTW you are being offensive again. Did something not work out?

Originally Posted by knockoff nige

Do you believe that people should be rewarded for getting rich?

Originally Posted by knockoff nige

Encouragement to get wealthy is one thing. Higher incomes is an obvious selling point in becoming wealthy. Benefits after you become wealthy as an incentive to become wealthy is quite a silly way to look at it and only excuses rorting. It is not why there are large tax breaks for the rich. That's mostly down to heavy lobbying and backroom deals.

Originally Posted by knockoff nige

You don't have to suggest that anything should be taken from the sick and the poor. That's already happening by the government. They are in fact looking to send those savings to the wealthy private sector.

Originally Posted by knockoff nige

I really don't know how to say it any differently to you. A billion dollar company doesn't need assistance. If they are only a billion dollar company because of assistance then that is false and wrong. It of course happens though because of the ongoing assistance that they get that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Originally Posted by knockoff nige

If this assistance was to be removed, the only reason for a billion dollar company to push prices up is because the shareholders and senior management must not feel the pinch. That must be a cost to the consumer.

Originally Posted by knockoff nige

If you find my posts offensive, that's your problem.