How Do I Convince my GF that Australia is a Rich Country?

penguin286 on 19/07/2018 - 23:48
Last edited 20/07/2018 - 19:03

Hi guys, this started because my gf complains about paying tax but I am the opposite.

She says she pays too much tax whereas I say we live in a country with an abundance of good infrastructure so I'm content with paying current taxes.

Overall, I get the feeling she compares herself domestically with Australians but I compare myself with the rest of the world.

FYI We're both 26 and earning 50-60 a year.

Maybe I should just drop her in the middle of Pakistan or something for a reality check

PS. My gf/fiance (same person LOL) is an awesome individual and I lurve her very much :D

Financial

Comments

    • frostman on 24/07/2018 - 08:11

      Is it any wonder she's pissed? She's literally paying for the wealthy to operate here.

      Agreed here.

  • monkeybusiness on 20/07/2018 - 00:15
    +8

    Its classic human nature. Everyone thinks they pay too much tax. Due to a progressive tax system, At 60k you are effectively paying a tax rate of around 18% when you . This isn't high by anyone's standards. Given that the median wage is higher, more than 50% of the population would pay more than you.

    Also you may be paying tax now but once kids come in the picture, you pretty much get a portion back in benefits.

    Infrastructure also do not come free. Sure there is some wastage in government and tax payers can get better value for money it doesn't come out of nothing.

    • penguin286 on 20/07/2018 - 01:07

      That's an interesting take on seeing tax post-kids, I'll be looking out for that one!

    • EightImmortals on 20/07/2018 - 08:35

      That is merely income tax, please add in all the other taxes and you'll get a better picture of the actual rate. OK so they take $1000 off you and give you $2 back? Not a great argument IMO. Infrastructure could come 'free' as it has in the past.

      https://larryhannigan.com/banks/the-story-of-the-commonwealt…

      "How the Nullabor railway was built debt free, interest free “By utilising Australian notes in this manner the Commonwealth Government avoided debt, interest-charges and taxation, and, before it finally entrusted the Australian Notes Account to the Common­wealth Bank, it made enough money out of that account to pay the greater portion of the construction cost of the East-West Rail­way, the remainder coming out of revenue. (Hansard, Vol. 129, p. 1930) 9th edition page 5"

      We are so trapped in our thinking that the way things are are the only way they ever have or could be that are willing to submit than to even consider doing anything better (or different).

      • greatlamp on 20/07/2018 - 14:08
        +3

        A nation without debt will severely limit the growth in its economy.

        It should not be an aim to have no debt, but to have an efficient return on the investment of that debt

        • EightImmortals on 21/07/2018 - 07:17

          I agree, sadly that is not what is happening, the (government) debt just keeps getting bigger and bigger however so what is going on is not in line with your aim either. But I disagree it SHOULD be everyone's aim to have NO DEBT, without the burden of debt (and interest) you can accomplish MUCH more with your money. Don't try and convince me that the government couldn't achieve a LOT with the tens of BILLIONS of dollars they spend on 'interest' each year.

    • Invert-Panda on 21/07/2018 - 18:37
      +1

      Citation needed for half the population earning more than $60k?

      Among full time workers the average may be $70k~ but such a small percentage of the population is actually working full time.(http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/6202.0) 35% of the population is not involved in the workforce, which is pretty crazy. Furthermore only about 60% of the workforce are full time. Saying more than half the population earns more than $60k is quite wrong.

      I agree with you on everything else. But the 'middle class income' in Australia is so much lower than what most people think.

  • AlienC on 20/07/2018 - 00:54

    Everybody always wants more espw when it means you get less.

  • [Deactivated] on 20/07/2018 - 01:14
    +7

    Send her to live in a developing country for a month.

    Don't need to go to Pakistan, just one of our neighbouring countries… From somewhere like Melbourne about 8 hours away you have like PNG, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, etc.

    Only give her the same amount of money a local would earn there.

    • havebeerbelywillsumo on 20/07/2018 - 01:49

      "Send her to live in a developing country for a month". err she may be unwilling to be exported LOL.

      Maybe an extended backpacker level holiday would be an idea. Drew22 has provided a good list though I'd be inclined to avoid PNG as the rule of law there appears especially shaky.

      • [Deactivated] on 20/07/2018 - 12:50

        I vote for PNG, let her experience what a lack of an effective police force is like.

    • penguin286 on 20/07/2018 - 16:53

      Yeah I would imagine going to the toilet, drinking clean water, access to hospitals and doctors, access to fresh and diverse etc are all a completely experience compared to Aus

    • oztite on 20/07/2018 - 22:51

      Just drive 8 hrs North West from Melbourne to Northern territory. No need to fly. We only pay tributes to Aboriginals at the start of our speeches, not our tax dollar…

      • R4 on 23/07/2018 - 15:27

        'our tax dollar'?

        GST - they get over 500% compared to what they collect

  • ChillBro on 20/07/2018 - 01:49
    +4

    Send her a link to this site where people have mountains of eneloops. If that's not rich, I don't know what is.

  • Cluster on 20/07/2018 - 02:11
    +12

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

    We're ranked 10th in the world. China has some very wealthy people and an upper class larger than our entire population, but per capita their wealth ranking is only 71st. People visit Shanghai/Beijing and marvel at the wealth, while ignoring the hundreds of millions who still live in comparative poverty.

    Russia is a super power, but ranked 62nd. We're ahead of Germany, the UK, Canada, etc. We're wealthy, although it doesn't feel like it when a basic house on the outskirts of a city costs half a million dollars.

    If people want to see how good we have it here there are plenty of places to visit where people live in real poverty and strife. Our welfare recipients live a life of luxury compared to hundreds of millions of slum dwellers around the world.

      • Blitzfx on 20/07/2018 - 18:55
        +5

        What is this shit? Fake news? Do you take people's comments out of context to push some dumb narrative?

        COMPARED to hundreds of millions of slum dwellers around the world.

        • No ONE on 20/07/2018 - 19:04
          +1

          What is this shit? Fake news?

          😂 you made my day!

    • Blitzfx on 20/07/2018 - 18:53
      +1

      Don't forget before the Olympic games, China rounded up all the homeless beggars and exported them out of the city. We pay a lot more than other country's to look after our disadvantaged.

      There are so many reasons people like that are unemployed and homeless; mental illness, lack of education, unemployment, discrimination laws. We put so much money into our healthcare and education so that our citizens grow up with good morals and make smarter decisions.

  • AustriaBargain on 20/07/2018 - 02:43
    +4

    She's lucky she's even earning a taxable income. The post tax money she takes for granted literally puts her in the top 1% of income earners in the world. She should spare a thought for those in Australia not able to work or earn as much per hour as her, not to mention those in other countries, even the US.

    • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 10:28
      +2

      Oh please. "Those who not able to work" make up a small proportion of people. "Those who're unwilling or too lazy to work" make up far larger numbers, and they're who we all end up paying for.

  • [Deactivated] on 20/07/2018 - 03:31
    -4

    Dude, you are part of the problem. Australia is overtaxed (other developed countries make fun of us because of it too), don't browbeat your girl into submission, WAKE UP.

    • whooah1979 on 20/07/2018 - 06:57
      +5

      Australia is overtaxed (other developed countries make fun of us because of it too

      Have you been to Sweden or Denmark lately?

      • EightImmortals on 20/07/2018 - 08:50
        +9

        https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/australia-the-mo…

        Australians are living in the most expensive G20 economy in the world. A study by the World Bank shows the costs of goods and services in Australia are elevated around the levels of pricey European countries Switzerland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden.

        The World Bank report, published last week and drawing on 2011 data, adds to evidence that Australia is expensive by international standards.

        The Economist Intelligence Unit’s worldwide cost of living survey published in January found Sydney and Melbourne were more expensive than New York and London and among the top 10 most expensive cities in the world. They ranked fifth and equal sixth, behind Singapore, Paris, Oslo and Zurich.­

        The World Bank analysis shows that with the exception of Bermuda, the most expensive economies are in the Eurostat-OECD region.

        And as a real comparison of what people living in THOSE countries get for their tax money, after all it's not really fair just to point out that we pay about the same levels of tax is it?

        https://everythingsweden.com/why-move-to-sweden/

        I'll just post the headlines, people can follow the link to read the details if they want. :)

        1. Swedish benefits are the best in the world.
        2. High taxes but with visible rewards
          3-5 Climate and social stuff.
        3. The Internet, (cheap and FAST)
        4. Public Transport (the transport network on Stockholm, is so good and widespread, that you don’t need a car of your own.)
          8-9 More social stuff
        5. Free education (for almost everyone) Whether you want to start learning Swedish at school, or study a masters in international business, Swedish schools and universities are free for EU citizens.
          11-12 Even more social stuff
        6. Working Conditions and Experimentation
        7. Systembolaget (government controlled booze outlets? I haven't heard of that before. :) )
        8. You can swear as much as you like on TV (same as here)

        So there's your real comparison, same tax rates but WAY more bang for the buck and we had the same services for the same amounts we are taxed here I probably wouldn't protest as much either.

        (sorry for the formatting error. :) )

        • AlienC on 20/07/2018 - 09:43
          +1

          Don't forget Swedish women and Swedish game companies ;)

        • EightImmortals on 20/07/2018 - 09:47
          +1

          @AlienC: Totally. But I was trying to keep it in terms of tax dollars V services provided. Unless those two things are provided as well?

        • AlienC on 20/07/2018 - 10:15
          +2

          @EightImmortals: I mean they may not be provided but they are in proximity and sometimes that's all you need. Would be pretty cool to be close to a game company..and women

        • Ghost47 on 20/07/2018 - 23:02
          +2

          Our government is very, very good at wasting tax payers money. Myki and the NBN are good examples. Over budget and shitty. Myki was likely borne out of nepotism also, some (profanity) gave Kamco the job and they had no experience developing a ticketing system. It's a joke.

      • [Deactivated] on 20/07/2018 - 09:04
        +1

        If I was living in Sweden or Denmark, I wouldnt be complaining about my taxes.

        • EightImmortals on 20/07/2018 - 09:20

          hashtag/ Me too?

        • UFO on 21/07/2018 - 04:39

          Yeah you would.

          https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.j…

          Finland's cost of living index is about the same as ours… and Denmark is more than ours!

          We are 4th in the World (of 195 Countries) when it comes to quality of life.
          And the 3 above us (Denmark, Finland, and Switzerland) don't have our climate!

          You need to wake up to reality.

      • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 10:30

        I've always hated this argument. When people say "We don't have good enough health services, mental support services, disability support, etc in Australia", I never see people reply with "Have you been to Bangladesh or Ethiopia recently?"

        And that'd make as much sense.

  • Cheap Steve on 20/07/2018 - 06:03
    +3

    Tax rates and thresholds are way more generous today for Aussies than they were in the past. When I first started working in the mid nineties the tax free threshold was $5k and top tax rate of 50% cut in at $50k taxable income a year. Ouch!

    It wasn't until mid Noughties when Howard and Costello were flush with China resource boom money that the tax thresholds were broadened to largely what they are today. Today's workers keep a much greater proportion of their take home pay than in the past if that is any consolation for your GF.

    • Baghern on 20/07/2018 - 11:42

      You seem to have lost a lot of perspective.

      You can't compare $ wise, but % of the people paying that tax.

      The system has for decades been pushed to a flatter tax system…

      That means more and more low/middle income earners are paying more tax.

      The 5k tax free thresh hold was ludicriously low for a long time.

      • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 15:47
        +2

        And yet low/middle income earners still pay a vanishingly small proportion of all tax.

      • Cheap Steve on 20/07/2018 - 17:03

        My perspective is just fine thanks and backed by facts.

        Inflation has averaged 2.6% pa since 1994 meaning $5k and $50k 1994 tax thresholds should now be $9k and $90k respectively.

        Instead, they are both double this in 2018 at $18k and $180k.

        If instead of inflation you use wages growth (AWOTE) then they should now be $12.5k and $125k respectively.

        It is significantly better to be a low and middle income earner (and high income earner) in 2018 than the nineties or noughties.

  • [Deactivated] on 20/07/2018 - 07:04
    +7

    On 50-60k you’re barely paying any tax. Tell her to pull her head in.

    • [Deactivated] on 20/07/2018 - 09:30
      +1

      Barely by Australian standards.

      Exorbitant by many others.

      • Baghern on 20/07/2018 - 11:43
        +2

        18% effectively rate is exorbitant?

  • chumlee on 20/07/2018 - 07:56
    +9

    At age 26 your only major concern should be not getting pregnant by accident

    • KBZ on 20/07/2018 - 09:17
      +11

      If he continues this discussion that shouldn't be a concern.

      • penguin286 on 21/07/2018 - 11:59

        @KBZ and @chumlee Hahahahahahahaha

    • AlienC on 20/07/2018 - 09:42

      Or impregnating by accident.

      • Dr Techno on 21/07/2018 - 00:23

        with a username like that, I would be expecting a alien to pop out of the stomach at any moment :-/

      • Dr Techno on 21/07/2018 - 00:23

        with a username like that, I would be expecting a alien to pop out of the stomach at any moment :-/

    • Emerald Owl on 21/07/2018 - 11:12

      26 is time to start having babies. This prolonging everything so 30 is the new 20 is retarded.

      • chumlee on 21/07/2018 - 11:33

        Thanks Kevin Andrews

      • penguin286 on 21/07/2018 - 11:48

        It feels like societies or cultures where a woman feels ready to raise a child at aged 20 requires a few things such as a close knit and supportive family and lesser career ambitions at that age.

        Considering in urban Australia where females tend to pursue their careers far more than developing nations, and the fact they tend to have left home already tells me it's why the mothering age has increased.

  • Sage on 20/07/2018 - 09:28

    Where's she from?

    • penguin286 on 21/07/2018 - 11:48

      Not ya mum

    • penguin286 on 21/07/2018 - 12:00

      Unless you're her sibling, in which case

      YA MUM

  • unqualified89 on 20/07/2018 - 09:49
    +5

    Travel truly broadens the mind. Get out of Australia and actually see some of the world with her. And I don't mean staying in Kuta in a nice hotel for 2 weeks.

    • MessyG on 20/07/2018 - 13:00

      +1.

    • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 15:48

      Really depends where they go.

      I can see a trip through Western Europe including the Nordic countries, through the US, and then back through Japan/Korea/Singapore….

      And OP's girlfriend would come back thinking Australia is basically a third-world country.

    • trapper on 20/07/2018 - 16:48

      Try 6 months in India

  • Godric on 20/07/2018 - 09:57

    Fighting that losing battle sir

    • penguin286 on 21/07/2018 - 11:49

      Haha as they say.. Even if I win the battle, I will lose the war!

  • Tightpocket on 20/07/2018 - 09:59
    +3

    You can't force your pov to her just because you feeling it because you both are right, I get where both of you were coming from and I actually agree with both of you. she compares herself domestically as she must've feel burdened that her tax money was blown on fireworks, roads that never gets done, centrelink, etc (she sees all the negativities on how govt spent her tax money but she failed to see the positivities). while you probably compare yourself to less fortunate countries than us and you're not wrong coz in Asia average monthly salary is about $500 AUD but then their infrastructure are heaps better than us, JPN, SGP, we are actually quite behind, they make our cinemas looks like a man cave rather than proper cinemas

    • sistermay on 20/07/2018 - 11:56
      +1

      And they probably don't need to pay exorbitant amount of money in building the infrastructure and can build it much faster without compromise on quality.
      I don't mind paying taxes but its the way the local/state/federal governments squander it makes me angry !!! If I do have a choice, I will pay no tax but donate to charities which align with the things I believe / support. At the moment, we are not getting value for money for our taxes paid.

      • Tyrx on 20/07/2018 - 20:11
        +1

        Sounds like you could also do with some travel to get some perspective. The public service in Australia is one of the most efficient in the OECD, and even across the world. Organisations like the World Bank consistently rank our govermental efficiency highly… If we force the entire population to live in an area the size of the ACT, then can start comparing our infrastructure to nations like Japan and Singapore.

    • penguin286 on 20/07/2018 - 19:05
      +1

      I feel like population density has a lot to do with their (Japan/SGP etc) infrastructures being far efficient than ours but it doesn't disprove that their infrastructures are better than ours for sure.

      Nice points

  • peterpeterpumpkin on 20/07/2018 - 10:28

    I wouldn't drop her in a third-world country. Drop her off in Sydney with an average mortgage and 3 kids and she'll quickly find the marginal tax rate a relatively minor inconvenience :) Our tax relative to our GDP is nothing remarkable for a developed country, but have a look at the percentage of income Sydney-siders spend on mortgages when compared with the rest of the world.

    • crentist on 20/07/2018 - 13:29
      +4

      sydney rent and property prices are a killer. the shittiest studios start at 300/week. ive been staying in central tokyo, where the shittiest studios cost 300/month. double that and you can get a pretty nice (if small) place for one person. and thats right in the city, not even out in the suburbs. i walk around near shinjuku (basically the cbd) and see real estate agents in the streets trying to sell new 2br condos in the area for around $700k

      salaries are generally lower in japan, but so is cost of living. and there seem to be a lot more opportunities around, lots of development everywhere. with no japanese, just some technical skills, i managed to get into an interesting startup for a while, then into a bigger company in a tech industry that i would have struggled to break into in sydney. barely felt the paycut at the startup because of lower living costs, and now my junior tech position pays way more than i was getting in sydney

      high rents are a massive trap. people get pushed into shared accommodation, living with partners, getting mortgages, chasing secure and higher paid jobs. which means less risk-taking, less r&d, fewer startups, and everyone settling down early and slaving away for finance & construction industries.

      take away high rents and living on low income becomes a sustainable life choice, which means you dont have to be rich to feel comfortable. so you can be poor and enjoy the freedom to do what you want and take more risks, or make money and actually get to feel rich

      • afoveht on 20/07/2018 - 14:50
        +1

        Yes, cost of entry into a work place - commercial or industrial - is a massive barrier that stifles so many opportunities. Our obsession with real estate is destroying is.

      • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 14:55

        take away high rents

        You're glossing over an incredibly complex and difficult-to-solve problem. In fact, it's a problem so hard to solve that basically no first world city where people want to move to and live, has been able to solve it.

        Fact is - land and property is limited. If your city is one where people want to move to and live, prices are going to rise, or you're going to have to resort to artificial limits which have other drawbacks, including diminishing the very reasons why people might want to live there.

        And as much as I love Japan, the average area of an apartment in Tokyo is 20 square meters. You'd be hard pressed to even find an apartment that small in any city in Australia.

        • crentist on 20/07/2018 - 17:11

          i think you may be underestimating with 20m2, but its still a common size. they are never intended for more than one person, which is pretty key. the average condo size is apparently around 65m2 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/668382/japan-condominium…), and they can get quite comfy.

          tiny places are common, but they are just an option. you can get bigger apartments easily enough, which can be comparable in size to sydney apartments. i found a figure that puts average brand new apartments within tokyo at 3500yen/sqm/month. which puts a new 20m2 place at $840/month, which sounds right from what ive seen. and it makes a 100sqm place $4200/month. still alright. i know someone with a brand new 3 storey townhouse next to shinjuku, for about $2400/month.

          i think the tiny places are good, it creates a lot of availability at the lower end of the market, and doesnt force everyone into sharehouses. especially since tokyo is surprisingly low-rise, outside of a few very busy spots. the problem with their housing isnt that a lot of places are small, its that there are no large places, house and garden type

    • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 13:34

      with an average mortgage

      Jesus, this is why Sydney-siders come across as whiners a lot of the time. You're basically treating property ownership as a given. Think about that for a second.

      A lot of people in other first world cities - Paris, London, Tokyo, etc - don't even dream about owning their own property.

      • penguin286 on 20/07/2018 - 18:55

        I agree so much with that

  • ESEMCE on 20/07/2018 - 10:31
    +4

    Drinking water from the tap…
    That's the definition of a rich country! "We've got so much money we can afford to shower in potable water!"

    Owning an iPhone (or a Midrange/Flagship Android), that's the definition of a rich person in a rich country.
    A $10 dumbphone on a $10/month plan can make calls just as well and as frequently as a smartphone, but you have so much disposable income you can afford and choose to blow $60+/month on an entertainment device.

    • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 10:31

      Pretty sure that's just OP's shitty English skills. What he's actually wanting to justify is our high tax rates and cost of living.

      • Tyrx on 20/07/2018 - 20:22
        +1

        The cost of living in Australia isn't too bad (well, excluding living in some remote shithole), the problem is that most Australians have entitled views of what "normal" expenditure is. The lack of any recession for decades has made people think that everyone else in the world takes yearly holidays…

        The OP doesn't pay high tax either - you would only pay 16% of your income in taxes if you were only earning 50k p/a. Not many OECD nations can boast of such a low tax rate, especially not the ones that aren't tax havens.

    • unqualified89 on 20/07/2018 - 14:15

      Pretty sure you'll find that a lot of people in lower classes in developing countries still have Iphones (not extreme poverty situations of course). I have friends in the Philippines who make $600 AUD a month and live with 3 generations in small homes near the slums in Manila and have Iphones. Worldwide the ceiling is lifting for what is considered as basic human rights eg access to internet

  • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 10:42
    -1

    I'm just going to leave this here:

    We do pay high rates of tax. But we also spend (waste) a lot of that tax revenue on welfare payments and effectively bribing the middle class. So unless you're in the top 20% of households for income, you very likely pay zero net tax.

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/no…

    Only the top fifth of households ranked by their income - those with incomes of more than $200,000 a year in the financial year ending June 2012 - pay anything into the system net of the value of social security in cash and kind received, according to data from the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of household income.

    Make of that what you will.

  • c0balt on 20/07/2018 - 10:50
    +1

    She's right. We pay a ridiculous amount of tax in this country compared to most other first world nations and don't have the infrastructure to show for it. Everything here is expensive also. We don't just have high wages, we have high costs of everything.

    Social welfare doesn't come cheap. Hope you like being rich in 'giving people your money'.

  • sydsm on 20/07/2018 - 10:54

    The issue of feeling Rich has to do with how much value for money, perception, savings etc. Off course at 50-60k you arent rich - even at 100k because your expenses will also increase and you will also feel miserable. Try moving to an even larger westernised city such as LA, NYC, London, Hong Kong, Shanghai etc. Its is SUPER expensive. But…you have security, cleanliness, order, law abiding citizens etc. It is the trade off of being able to wake up and flush the toilet and have running water (rather than a bucket and a hole scenario). Good luck.

    • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 11:04

      Try moving to an even larger westernised city such as LA, NYC, London, Hong Kong, Shanghai etc. Its is SUPER expensive.

      https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings.jsp

      Sydney has higher costs of living than LA, HK, Shanghai, and basically on par with London. We… don't really have much better services than any of those.

  • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 11:03

    —-wrong reply—-

  • myusername on 20/07/2018 - 11:40

    it's a rich country if you're rich

  • echelon6 on 20/07/2018 - 11:57

    easy show her this http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/austra…

    Sydney average household networth 1.3m in 2017

  • [Deactivated] on 20/07/2018 - 11:58
    +2

    Yeah send her to Pakistan

  • [Deactivated] on 20/07/2018 - 12:07
    +1

    Do a comparison by absolute value not by $.

    Take 2 countries, whichever and compare absolute purchasing power and taxes if you want. That's how I managed to convince my friends that we are actually much much better off than almost anywhere in the world.

    Compare how much % of your daily/monthly/yearly wage is spend on the same staff vs other place. Let me give you an example.

    Australia vs ABC

    • Daily income = 100%

    Costs in Australia:

    • Loaf of bread = 1%
    • Coffee = 1%
    • Commuting = 2%
    • 1 kg of poultry = 5%
    • 1 kg of beaf = 10%

    Costs in ABC:

    • Loaf of bread = 3%
    • Coffee = 2%
    • Commuting = 1%
    • 1 kg of poultry = 10%
    • 1 kg of beaf = 20%

    Do the same on the taxes and utilities

    • Rent/mortgage
    • utilities
    • fuel
    • phone
    • internet

    This is absolute spending.

    For example Australia vs Sudan:

    Australia - 1kg potatoes = $5
    Sudan - 1kg potatoes = $2

    Seems cheaper in Sudan but they are paying 27% of their daily wage on that kg of potato. How much % are you paying of your daily wage?

    • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 12:09
      +1

      Does it work out as well when you compare Australia with other first world countries? I feel if you need to compare Australia with Sudan to make a point, you've kind of lost the argument already, because you're basically saying "But we're better than Sudan!" Which, while true, doesn't really say anything. Can you believe we're also better than North Korea too?

      • [Deactivated] on 20/07/2018 - 12:20

        That was my point. Compare Australia with any country and see how much better off or worse off we are.

        The comparison with Sudan I made it because it was on the radio whilst writing this and got stuck in my head. Didn't want to put Sudan in hole saying that, but it does prove the point. While it seems cheaper per raw value, it is in fact a whole lot more expensive per absolute purchasing power.

        I did this with USA, Germany, UK, etc. While the difference is smaller, the numbers are there.

        • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 12:21

          Thanks. Do you know how we compare when accounting for tax rates? I know we have higher taxes than the US, but lower than Germany. Not sure about the UK though. (Though I guess being better than Germany is already pretty impressive).

        • penguin286 on 20/07/2018 - 16:41

          This was probably my main argument and everything else stemmed from here to argue about how lucky we are in this country. The tax thing is a side-issue, and was more of a 'if you had to choose to live in Zimbabwe vs pay your taxes and live here' sort of thing.

          This is also an assumption from me, but I felt that families living on $10-300 a month have very little choice in what they choose to consume or what sort of living arrangements they can choose to have whereas here I feel with my income, I at least could have a lot more choices in every department even if I had to pay the taxes required

        • Tyrx on 20/07/2018 - 20:29

          @HighAndDry: The aggregate tax burden in Australia is lower than the OCED average - we are considered a low-tax, low-welfare country by that standard. With that said, we have the highest income tax rate in the OCED for our top bracket. The OP would actually pay much more tax as a percentage of his income in most OCED countries, but if you're in the top tax tier, it would be the complete opposite story.

      • [Deactivated] on 20/07/2018 - 12:23

        For example, in Berlin, an average person will pay 10% of their income on electricity every month, whilst me in Melbourne I'm paying probably paying less than 3%.

  • T1OOO on 20/07/2018 - 12:23
    +3

    We pay about 33% in tax. Truth is if it was better managed we could have the same and it cost only 10%. That’s the problem.

    • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 12:25
      +4

      Exactly.

      Plus people are in here acting as if all our taxes go towards common goods and services (like infrastructure) that everyone uses. That's patently false - that person on welfare who uses that welfare payment on the pokies? That has no benefit for me, and nor would I want that amount even if I was in that position. If there's enough money to be wasted on gambling, it means it's far above the minimum amount needed to live comfortably.

    • penguin286 on 20/07/2018 - 16:44

      I don't disagree with tax having room for improvement, but say you were in a draw to be born in any country of equal chance - would Australia be the top 20% of your list of places to work and live normally?

  • MessyG on 20/07/2018 - 12:56

    Tell her to go live in America. No Medicare. Birth rate at a historical low and dropping because it is up to hundreds of thousands out of pocket if there's any pregnancy complications. Hundreds of thousands out of pocket for cancer treatments. No subsidised medications - even with insurance you can still pay hundreds. If you lose your job, no health insurance, you have to pay for your health care. America's health system is now essentially being propped up by charity via GoFundMe campaigns for diseases we get treated completely free. The cost of healthcare in America far outstrips any other Western society yet their health outcomes are worse.

    If she wants to not pay tax and be out hundreds of thousands of dollars if she gets ill or injured through no fault of her own, tell her to go right ahead! It is scary what's happening over there now. Ultra low income earners get some coverage but even that is getting stripped back thanks to a certain ilk of human who feel that 'their money' should not pay for anyone's healthcare but their own. It is SO much more expensive to leave these things to private interests.

    Also if she comes up with the typical argument 'but in America you don't have to wait to see a doctor' tell her you'd rather wait a bit (while more urgent cases are seen!) than be out of pocket the cost of a home loan.

    Yes there's a lot of bureaucratic inefficiency that puts taxes higher than they should be but holy shit I'm far happier with where the bulk of those taxes are going than what's going on in the US. Not to mention no HECS etc etc.

    And thanks to all the opportunities I've been privileged enough to receive thanks to our society, I am more than f***ing happy to pay tax at the current rate after what I've seen in other countries.

    • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 13:02
      +2

      Birth rate at a historical low and dropping because it is up to hundreds of thousands out of pocket if there's any pregnancy complications.

      Lol. That has nothing to do with declining birth rates. You'd find that even in Nordic countries with amazing (and amazingly cheap) healthcare, as well as Japan. Birth rates are completely and utterly tied to standard of living - apparently the more money people make, the less they like popping out babies.

      If you lose your job, no health insurance, you have to pay for your health care.

      This is arguably better than Australia, where we have to pay for PHI out of pocket instead of having our employers pay for it.

      • MessyG on 20/07/2018 - 15:50

        No, it's not. Because there's no Medicare to back you up there. Need to see a GP and get antibiotics? That'll be a few hundred bucks. And you're out of a job.

        And you are so completely wrong re birthrate. You can't compare Nordic countries (massive socialized medical safety net) with America (none). Having a kid in America is simply unaffordable for a huge swathe of the population. Suggest you do some reading.

        • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 15:53
          +1

          Sure, but you're paying less tax, so your take-home is more. Enough to cover your additional medical expenses? Depends how much you need.

          And you are so completely wrong re birthrate. You can't compare Nordic countries (massive socialized medical safety net) with America (none).

          And yet both have falling rates of child birth.

          US according to the BBC: The fertility rate has dropped to 1.76 births per woman.

          Norway countries according to… this: In Norway, the figure is now down to 1.71.

          By your logic, the US with its far worse healthcare, should have lower rates. So you're just flat out wrong here. Birth rates have no correlation to cost or quality of healthcare.

          Let me remind you that this is what you said:

          Birth rate at a historical low and dropping because it is up to hundreds of thousands out of pocket if there's any pregnancy complications.

        • MessyG on 20/07/2018 - 16:17

          @HighAndDry: When you say "less" tax, it is around 10% less. It is nowhere near enough to cover additional medical expenses in a privatised system.

          In America, private insurers negotiate the cost of pharmaceutical drugs with the pharma companies. Two private entities negotiating on price for a third party buyer. In Australia, our government negotiates the prices of drugs, then subsidises so that we all pay roughly the same low amount - a box of antibiotics isn't $20 because that's what the drug company wants, it's what the government has negotiated for on our behalf.

          Drug companies set the cost in the US without anywhere near as much regulation. Remember Martin 'pharma-bro' Shkreli? That shit happens all the time.

          To treat hepatitis-C in the US, should you be unlucky enough to contract it, the price for the new curative drugs is around $250,000. How much of that your employer-funded insurance covers really depends on the sort of job you do, and even then, you're going to be minimum tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket. This is the same for a wide variety of diseases, including all cancers. There is simply no government protection if this happens. To get more macabre, there was recently the story of a young man in the ICU who was very unwell who was asked if he wanted to be resuscitated if he arrested. He was ventilated and unable to speak, so simply wrote down the words "no insurance" and passed away later that day. Cases like that are mercifully rare, but horrifying. Cancer treatment can run into the millions, so no, a roughly 10% difference in tax paid will never cover that.

          Further convoluting the problem, is the university system there. Doctors, nurses, allied health all owe hundreds of thousands in university fees because no HECS. The younger grads don't WANT universal health because in countries like ours, the medical staff earn a lot less than our American counterparts once fully qualified, which means they wouldn't be able to pay off their debts. The price of health over there just keeps spiralling up and up.

          And look what happens when you go hardline capitalist on people's health:

          https://ourworldindata.org/the-link-between-life-expectancy-…

          They spend more than us on healthcare for worse outcomes. I know our tax system and government is disgustingly inefficient but when inefficiency starts impacting on mortality then you have a big f***ing problem. I wouldn't live there for the world.

          Again with the dropping birthrate - I maintain you cannot compare the two - both might be dropping, but for vastly different reasons and those different reasons will have very different impacts on their respective economies in the longer term.

        • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 16:30
          +2

          @MissG:

          When you say "less" tax, it is around 10% less. It is nowhere near enough to cover additional medical expenses in a privatised system.

          Again, it depends how much medical treatment you need. For a household making $120k, that's $12,000 extra a year. I certainly don't spend that much on medical treatment or drugs or even just normal GP visits in a year - nowhere close.

          Save that up throughout your lifetime and I'd wager most people break even. PLUS, again, your employer is paying for your health insurance too in the US, remember?

          They spend more than us on healthcare for worse outcomes.

          There are a few issues with this. First is that their health industry is akin to their military industry - they're paying not just for themselves, but also effectively to subsidize the cost of medical R&D for the rest of the world. It's not a coincidence that the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world are mostly based in the US.

          Second, because of how health insurance in the US works, the "amount spent" and actual cost doesn't correlate very well - insurance companies will pay large amounts to hospitals, which then pay large kickbacks for referrals, etc, with little of that affecting the actual consumer. It basically goes around in a circle, inflating observed costs but little more.

          Is the US healthcare perfect? No. Is it even above average compared to other OECD or first world countries? Arguable. But is it as bad as you make it out to be? No, nowhere near. I'd bet you get all your opinions from the media and especially from left-leaning sources. That those sources tend to prefer more socialist welfare and healthcare policies goes without saying.

          In any case, you can't look solely at only one aspect of a country to judge its tax system. Healthcare is one (major, but still only one) aspect of the US. You have to take into account everything else as well, and there's a reason why the US is still a destination for prospective immigrants and ex-pats, and not only those from the third world.

        • MessyG on 20/07/2018 - 16:52

          @HighAndDry:

          Okay:

          1. Your employer is paying your health insurance. That health insurance does not automatically cover the cost of everything and anything that might happen to you. It doesn't even 100% subsidise the cost of your drugs should you need them!

          2. They do not "effectively subsidize R&D for the rest of the world". You appear to have forgotten all of Europe.

          3. When you say 'inflating observed costs', again, you're not thinking about cost to the consumer. And again, health insurance != 100% subsidisation of hospital, drug, operation and consult costs. It's not dissimilar to here where there's a gap - except that the gap can get up to the millions.

          4. I am not making the argument that US healthcare is inferior. I'm making the argument (although not really an argument so much as an accepted fact, even by both parties in the US), that US healthcare is disproportionately expensive for the outcomes they get.

          5. No my sources are not 'left-leaning sources' whatever that means. It's just health outcome and expense data. Both sides of US politics agree that it is too costly - where they disagree is in how to tackle it. One side wants the market to solve it, the other, the government.

          I'm happy to pay 10% more tax across my lifetime than to suddenly be in debt for hundreds of thousands of dollars through no fault of my own. I'm so surprised when people want to get rid of Medicare just because they want to pay less tax, it's amazing.

        • HighAndDry on 20/07/2018 - 16:54

          @MissG:

          I'm happy to pay 10% more tax across my lifetime than to suddenly be in debt for hundreds of thousands of dollars through no fault of my own. I'm so surprised when people want to get rid of Medicare just because they want to pay less tax, it's amazing.

          Great that you're happy. The thing with a tax system is that it's forced on everyone, whether they're happy with it or not.

          And absolutely no one has argued that Medicare should be abolished. Even the comparison to the US (which doesn't have a Medicare-like system) was brought up by you.

        • MessyG on 20/07/2018 - 17:43

          @HighAndDry: All I'm seeing is arguments against taxpayer-funded healthcare though…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join