What are you guys spending your free $1080 on??? Probably not many people will get is since majority of the ozbargainers here earn > $125K HAHAAH
What are you guys spending the free $1080 on???
Homr on 04/07/2019 - 21:58
Last edited 04/07/2019 - 23:04 by 1 other user
Last edited 04/07/2019 - 23:04 by 1 other user
Comments
Only true if the rich guys pay tax, experience showed that rich people have more mean of tax avoidance
example:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-13/one-third-of-australi…
so your example should have the 7th to 9th guys pay the most tax while the 10th guys pay less while having the biggest tax break
Only true if the rich guys pay tax, experience showed that rich people have more mean of tax avoidance
… goes on to reference article about company tax.
Tax that is not collected because tax is based on profit. Money reinvested, is. Acquiring more assets, will differ taxation until assets are sold. In the mean time, that spending was the whole basis of "share the wealth because it will increase spending" yet when companies who made the money spends the money, it is called tax evasion.
Only those who receive the money and haven't worked for the money is righteous. Well, at least according to some people…
If the company hasn't made money because they've paid out a significant amount of profits as dividends, the recipient of said dividends pay personal income tax at a higher percentage.
Good to know who upvotes your comment because it just shows who absolutely doesn't have a clue how taxation works.
@[Deactivated]: I agree that you have a point. and I am willing to pursue this debate.
If you want to insist on personal income, I would defer to the "Panama Paper" incident where it is proven that there is a global conspiracy of the rich to avoid tax.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/panama-p…Malcolm Turnbull was also implicated
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-12/turnbull-listed-in-pa…I am reluctant to argue about what level of tax for each level of wealth is appropriate since my knowledge is lacking, but I have 2 main reasons to levy high tax on the rich [aside from the obvious bias of being relatively poor myself]
- I believe that society should support as many people to be rich as possible. that is to provide education to increase the value of citizens, provide healthcare to extend the productive time, provide opportunities so that anyone can try in their own way to be rich. and those who have by their own hand or supported by the system been made rich should contribute more.
- I believe that success can sometime come down to luck and not just talent and hard work. [Say comparing a native and an immigrant of similar skill, the native would have many more advantages allowing them high wages without having a better talent or work ethic]. In such cases, I believe it is just that those who are lucky should pay more taxes to cover those who are less fortunates.
I am just trying to explain how my beliefs are formed. my assumptions can be wrong, and you would have my gratitude if you can explain such mistakes to me clearly.
Back to my main point
I am under the impression that most international corporations engage in taxes avoidance to some degrees. Which is inherently unfair. and I assume you agree that if there are tax loophole to allow that, it should be closed. Correct me if I am wrong.I think the Treasury agree with me as the above but I maybe misinterpreting things.
https://treasury.gov.au/tax-evasionmy impression was mostly formed by the vid below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKjk0ECXjiQHowever, further reading indicates that the problem is much less severe in Australia. So I am shifting my views a bit. Would that be enough for you?
I believe that society should support as many people to be rich as possible.
"Richness" has always been relative. It has always been a function of inequality. What do you define as "Rich". There are 7700 million people on that planet. Lets say I gave you a magic button that allowed you to redistribute all "Richness" as you see fit (no creation or destruction of existing products and services). How many people would it be physically possible for you to make "Rich" according to your definition?
I believe that society should support as many people to be rich as possible. that is to provide education to increase the value of citizens, provide healthcare to extend the productive time, provide opportunities so that anyone can try in their own way to be rich. and those who have by their own hand or supported by the system been made rich should contribute more.
If increasing education means increasing value, it would be in the best interest of the individual to pay for their education. It would be unfair for those without the education but happen to be rich (hard work/luck, it doesn't matter) to pay to increase the value of someone else.
If the cost of providing healthcare exceeds the value of the person receiving said healthcare, this notion of taxing the rich to extend the workers life does not work. Look at the distribution of spending. A significant portion goes to extending the life of those that no longer work. By extension, would taking away their care and passing it onto someone younger be fair? Who then will be the arbiter?
I believe that success can sometime come down to luck and not just talent and hard work. [Say comparing a native and an immigrant of similar skill, the native would have many more advantages allowing them high wages without having a better talent or work ethic]. In such cases, I believe it is just that those who are lucky should pay more taxes to cover those who are less fortunates.
And sometimes, it comes down to hardwork and good decisions. Your scenario exist, and my scenario exist.
Someone could be unlucky and work hard, and someone else could be lucky and broke because of poor decisions.
Should the hardworking but unlucky pay more to someone who is lucky but broke because some of the rich are lucky?
Ideals are nice but ideals do not always work. If we apply ideals where they cannot work, the ideals could have the unintended effect of punishing those who do the right thing and reward those who are not.
@[Deactivated]: Good reply,
I shall answer thusly
- many individuals cannot afford education, not to any faults of themselves [say orphan or immigrants]. And giving them education make them more likely to produce more, higher quality goods [simplified to more goods]. Since they make more, they usually spend more, creating wealth as money circulate, companies can also hire higher quality workers who produce more. Thus everyone rises. I believe education and healthcare have similar roles to infrastructure, the good derived from them is hard to calculate but it is there, it is significant, and everybody benefit. I believe that a healthy government helping to maintain a healthy economy would spend money on infrastructure and as such, also on educations and healthcare. [I believe that those who have more wealth would benefit more but I have no data to back it up, maybe that companies in high education countries make more money?]
- Can I take it that you agree that to the extent of increasing productivities health care spending is justified? Also, don't extending life span allowing for increasing retirement age? [which was implemented] don't taking care of the elderly efficiently allow for more people to remain in the workforce? I mean in certain poor Asian countries it is a duty of a child to take care of the parent [usually the eldest or the youngest] and his or her siblings would have to contribute since he or she wouldn't be able to work. [I mean the question "should we or should we not kill all those who are too infirm to contribute?" is not a question I or you would want to get into I assume]
as for is it more likely that hardwork or lucky contribute to success. I propose we agree to disagree. unless you have hard data to determine how much of success is due to each, I don't think you can convince me nor I convince you. I just want to raise the point which you had acknowledged.
many individuals cannot afford education, not to any faults of themselves
That's true. I feel for them, Australian or otherwise. I do contribute to charity. Some people contribute more than me but that's the beauty of it, they're doing it out the beauty of their humanity, not socialist obligation.
giving them education make them more likely to produce more, higher quality goods
That's true but I'm not obligated to ensure they are more productive and neither are they obligated to be productive with their education. Unless we force the person who received to produce, that arrangement is encourages corruption. If we meet in the middle ground, ie. if someone accepts resources and promise to return the resource once they are productive, it is more tolerable. That system already exist.
I believe education and healthcare have similar roles to infrastructure
I view them as opposites in many ways. Teaching a person to do something makes inroads into the unknown. Keeping someone alive is stopping the inevitable.
Secondly, one without education cannot have education, ie. Education requires a teacher. Healthcare is remedial, ie. if someone is already healthy, healthcare isn't necessary.
If someone cannot be bothered to look after themselves, another should not be obligated to pay to keep them alive.
Who then is arbiter of preventable illness and incidental illness?
Can I take it that you agree that to the extent of increasing productivities health care spending is justified?
As you can already guess from the statement above, I don't think it is justified. I work in healthcare and I am completely aware that healthcare is a pit. If the world's spending is used on healthcare, we do not advance. If used on education for example, we do.
Also, don't extending life span allowing for increasing retirement age?
To what end? So that people can work to pay for more healthcare?
I mean in certain poor Asian countries it is a duty of a child to take care of the parent
It is the same in my family and we have done it for time immemorial. We believe it works and we have every evidence it does. We are still here and thriving.
The problem I have with socialist thinking is that it requires surrendering my rights to the judgement of someone else. It didn't work out for my people in many occasions and it isn't working out for many people.
@[Deactivated]: @tshow
my argument would be that society as a whole would be more productive and happy if healthcare and education [to a certain level] is guaranteed. Instead of rely on charity, which I assume if we switching from taxes to fund to charity to fund would not be adequately funded. I guess my argument is that in cases where it is obviously luck that grants success [normal people compare to orphan] then it is an obligation to tax the lucky [normal people] to help the luckless [orphan]. In cases where the distinction is not so clear, I suggest going with the best estimate of ratio of luck/hardwork and tax accordingly.
I've heard a lot of people who say if you want to make it, just borrow money and invest, if you are intelligent you can make it rich. I have an objection. Imagine an opportunity with 50% of giving you 10x the investment, and 50% of losing all investment. the minimum investment is 100K AUD. say person A inherited 1000k AUD [and likely matching income but let set it aside for now], see the opportunity and decided to invest, sure if they lost they didn't lose much, if they win they will gain a lot, the percentage check out. Person B was born poor, only 10k AUD saving [and matching income] even if they can see the same opportunity they won't dare borrow and invest, because if they lose they would be stuck in debt for the rest of their life. So you see, A can invest at least 10 times in this opportunity before going into debt, the risk is minuscule. B's risk in this opportunity is 50% in debt for the rest of his life. [Not to mention debt is costly, this mean that those who issue debt [usually the wealthy] is taxing the poor for being poor (I mean I usually support government issued loan as none profit loan)]
I am not arguing for people being poor because they are at fault [greedy or stupid decision] [group A] I am arguing for people who are poor because of circumstance beyond their controls [orphan, immigrants, born to poor families] [group B]. Can you give me an estimate of the ratio of Group A/Group B? I believe Group B is much bigger than group A but I don't have hard data.
"Who then is arbiter of preventable illness and incidental illness?" Does this mean that if there are researches that delineate the difference between the 2 then you would support taxing for the purpose of incidental illness? I mean there are diseases that are obviously incidental [e.g. genetic defect], other less so [e.g. infection], some in debate [e.g. obesity], and those that are overwhelmingly lifestyle choice [e.g. smoking-related lung diseases]. Side note, would you support funding such researches?
Assuming a policy A that improve the production and happiness of the society as a whole then it is in the interest of society to pressure people to adopt policy A. This is why I am trying to frame my preferred solution as benefiting society as a whole.
what coincident I am also working in healthcare. I am mildly disturbed that you do not see extending human life [with associated wellbeing] as the end in themselves. while I agree that there is a significant amount of resource that is sunk into futile care [how much anyway? I got this info at one point but I forgot, if you can provide me with hard data I would be much obliged] I believe most are of great efficacy [i.e. for every dollar spent on most health care programs you can expect more than that as return on tax investment along with quality life years as outlined here: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/278073/C… ].
I am curious as to how you would qualify "Advancement". If advancement is not to extend the human quality life year then I found it a tad unpalatable.
The Implication for extending the retirement age is the belief that humans live longer and healthier and therefore can work longer. This may or may not be true. But I am quite sure that human is living longer and having a much higher quality of life and that increasing these is a worthy cause.
I am not saying that having to stay at home and care for your parents is bad, but it requires a significant resource investment and I am just saying that the cost should be made clear to compare with alternatives.
I have no great love for so-called "socialist" countries myself. I am however quite enamored with the Nordic model. They have universal healthcare, universal education, high progressive tax [ https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-19/high-t… ]. The result is the group of the happiest, most educated, most productive [GDP per capita] countries in the world.
I don't know what exactly are your misgivings regarding socialist countries or socialist policies. I am certain you have valid reasons for such misgivings. I am quite sure I am not as knowledgable as you regarding those misgivings. However, I want you and me to live in a country with the happiest, most educated, most productive people. In short, I want you and me to be happy, educated, and productive. I believe the Nordic model is worth examine and learn from if not outright replicated. I am well aware that each of those countries has its own circumstances that influence the efficacy of their policies. But, I am highly skeptical of dismissing policies as "socialist" without discussion of effect and circumstances.
I enjoyed our talk greatly and you did allow me to explore new viewpoints. Thank you for your time and effort in this matter.
@Sortale: Let me address the entirety of your points above since every point converges to this.
I am however quite enamored with the Nordic model. They have universal healthcare, universal education, high progressive tax
That is socialism but many Nordic countries will refuse to be associated with the word.
The result is the group of the happiest, most educated, most productive [GDP per capita] countries in the world.
They already enjoyed all those things before they adopted their current model. These countries were wealthy to begin with.
I don't know what exactly are your misgivings regarding socialist countries or socialist policies.
Countries with middle GDP or below that turned to socialism would be a better representation of how socialism works. Venezuela is the most recent socialist country to show it's true colours. China has "always" been socialist and you can see how that's going.
In short, I want you and me to be happy, educated, and productive.
Nothing wrong with that but that's not all you want. You want that to be funded by a certain group.
I believe the Nordic model is worth examine and learn from if not outright replicated.
It would be great but that would involve being rich for centuries in a racially homogenous small nation. We are neither of those things. As a nation, we aren't even old enough to be old rich.
dismissing policies as "socialist" without discussion of effect and circumstances.
Policies are not more or less socialist based on effect nor circumstance. Policies are socialist if the justification for the policy is "the greater good" and any other incarnation of that phrase.
I enjoyed our talk greatly and you did allow me to explore new viewpoints. Thank you for your time and effort in this matter.
Likewise. Never a moment wasted in civil discussion, even if we disagree.
@[Deactivated]: I largely agree that the Nordic model is very similar to socialism [I would argue that it is even more so than so-called "socialist" countries [Personally I would say that China and Venezuela are more authoritarian than socialist but I don't want to argue this matter at this moment]]. However, there are many who would dispute that.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry…
I am not well read enough to argue economic policies coherently. But if the link below is true:
https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-Nordic-Model-start
They adopt the Nordic model as a measure against the Great Depression [suggesting it does not require a strong economy ( though not very conclusive evidence)] with a solid track record of economic growth balanced with human quality life year. Corporate tax:22-25%
- The American model has great economic growth, but atrocious human quality life year for a country with such high GPD per capita. [some would argue that the economic result is just the result of fighting a war against a powerful overseas enemy during a time when major discoveries in computation, transportation, and energy production have just occurred. Prosecute the war in such a way that every powerful nation but your own is ruined. Afterward, collect fleeing scientists and engineers as your troop return, enjoy the burst of social cohesion and the boom in manufacturing as you supply a devastated planet. While the world's best mind create ever better products, industries and discoveries within your border.] moderate-high progressive income tax [low compare to Nordic model], Corporate tax: 21-32% [depend on the state]
- The Japan model which supposedly similar to the American model has been stagnating for years. high progressive tax rate [but wikipedia claim to have low tax rate after reduction], Corporate tax: 23.2
- The Chinese model has very great growth rate couple with central planning, but the political system sound very unappealing, moderately low population satisfaction. And I don't think Australia has the political will to follow any kind of long term central plan anyway [NBN project anyone?]. China also invests heavily into foreign countries while transitioning from a resource extractor economy to a manufacturing/service industry. All else aside, I would have preferred for Australia to learn from this policy. Surprisingly, no tax free threshold and moderately high progressive income tax. Corporate tax: 25%
- Venezuela has no tax free threshold and low progressive income tax. If we are to say don't do as Venezuela then it would be crazy indeed. Corporate tax:34%
I am recommending the Nordic model based on this logic. which is flimsy as hell, but it's the best I can do.
China and Venezuela are more authoritarian than socialist
Authoritarian rule is the ultimate consequence of socialism. If policies are driven by an arbiter for the "greater good", the arbiter is essentially surrendered all power.
The American model has great economic growth, but atrocious human quality life year for a country with such high GPD per capita.
Demonstrably false. Whatever "data" that has been manipulated to push the agenda, there are millions who risk their lives to go to the US, and neither is there a mass Exodus of American citizens. If there was ever a an example of empirical proof, here's the pudding.
Prosecute the war in such a way that every powerful nation but your own is ruined.
Conjecture at best. If every other country goes into war with the US, the US is in trouble. No single country needs to defeat the US army, merely assure mutual destruction. They've made many good decisions like securing global oil trade in USD. To simply state that the US is great because they stole scientist and prosecuted others is no different to the poor proclaiming the wealthy are all thieves. Baseless.
The Japan model which supposedly similar to the American model…
Don't forget the huge population that is dependant on imports and is neighbouring a superpower they once committed unspeakable atrocities against, and stole from at the end of WW2.
Their model is also very different from the US. In fact, they have some differences so polarizing that it is ridiculous to call the two similar - US has one of the highest military expenditure and military involvement globally. Japan has a restricted military expenditure and has marginal internation deployment.
I can write a thesis length article on how the two models are different… Population density, system of government, culture, religion, racial distribution, breakdown of imports and exports, constitutional rights….
The Chinese model…
No one knows what their model truly is as their government is far from transparent. They can relocate entire cities to obscure any analysis. They even have a national internet firewall to ensure transparency can never exist.
Venezuela has no tax free threshold and low progressive income…
Progressive tax is meaningless if the government has the power to dictate your income and simply take what they want. Many African nations have low tax too but what significance does tax have when the government or the militia can simply take or print more money? They are certainly no capitalist success story.
The Nordic model may work for the Nords but apart from some Australians having Nordic heritage, we are not the same. Having us emulate the Nords in hopes of achieving the same atmosphere is equivalent to hoping PNG can emulate the US.
@[Deactivated]: Uhm the Nordic countries have been doing the Nordic Model [which you call Socialism] for at least 60 years and they turn out alright no Authoritarian regime yet. Do you want to bet how long before they turn into Authoritarian?
According to this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d…The US does have the highest Raw immigrant number. But almost right below are Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE. Do you claim that because they are also high in immigrants that they are lovely places to live? I mean people also try their hardest to go to the EU and the Nordic countries.
I would also argue that the high GPD was what makes many people want to go to the US without considering the fact that most of the wealth actually go to a small percentage of the population and that people may have better happiness and productivity elsewhere. But I have no data to back up my claim.My opinion on US happiness and wellbeing is informed by this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK115854/which stated:
Of 17 high-income countries studied by the National Institutes of Health in 2013, the United States ranked at or near the top in obesity rate, frequency of automobile use and accidents, homicides, infant mortality rate, incidence of heart and lung disease, sexually transmitted infections, adolescent pregnancies, recreational drug or alcohol deaths, injuries, and rates of disability. Together, such lifestyle and societal factors place the U.S. at the bottom of that list for life expectancy.
by this:
http://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/prison-popula…Which showed:
The United States has the highest prison and jail population (2,121,600 in adult facilities in 2016), and the highest incarceration rate in the world (655 per 100,000 population in 2016).
By this:
https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2018/Which showed:
All the top countries tend to have high values for all six of the key variables that have been found to support well-being: income, healthy life expectancy, social support, freedom, trust and generosity.
ranking of countries according to the happiness of their immigrant populations is almost exactly the same as for the rest of the population. […]
As per 2019 Happiness Report, Finland is the happiest country in the world, with Denmark, Norway, Iceland, and the Netherlands holding the next top positions.
Australia Ranked 10
US ranked 18 and droppingSo I feel somewhat justified in my statement that "the US has […] atrocious human quality life year for a country with such high GPD per capita"
I am not saying that WWII is the only cause of the US prominence but I am trying to show that the growth of the US economy is not entirely policy driven and therefore decrease the weight of following US's policy
I am not that certain of the Japanese economy or Chinese economy myself, Just something I was told.[I used "supposedly" and I am not well versed in economic (are you well versed in economic by any chance? like, study economic for your master degree? Because I may be interested in reading your thesis comparing economic models of different countries. If you can spare the time and effort of course. Many thanks in advance)]
Yeah, I am pretty sure that both you and me are advocating not following Venezuela policies.
Ok, I agree that copying wholesale is extremely unlikely to work [sorry if I haven't made it clear above]. I am honestly asking: in your opinion, what is the difference between the Nordic countries and Australia that make certain policies not working as intended?
IIRC, you said and I paraphrase: "Nordic countries have homogenous Nordic people with Nordic culture which is different to Australia with non-homogenous Multiculture which render Nordic model [universal healthcare, universal education, high progressive tax] inoperable in Australia." (correct me if I misrepresent your view)
Can you elaborate on the causal model? Like for example: "Nordic people are homogenous, therefore more likely to support each other so they don't take advantage of universal healthcare, universal education against the good of other"?
I am also disputing the claim of the high degree of non-homogenous. Certainly, you have a point, 26% of the Australian population were born overseas and is one of the highest in the world. But most of them are from the UK. considering 89.9% of Australian listed UK or Australian ancestries [ https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by+Subject/2… ], it could be argued that the majority of Australian is of Anglo-Celtic culture [Provided that we accept "Anglo-Celtic people are descended primarily from British and Irish people" as the definition]By the By, which policies group do you approve of, just for reference?
@Sortale: I am a big fan of the constitutional rights in the US.
Can you elaborate on the causal model? Like for example: "Nordic people are homogenous, therefore more likely to support each other so they don't take advantage of universal healthcare, universal education against the good of other"?
On the balance of probability it is infinitely more likely a Swiss in Switzerland would have contributed to their social safety nets than an immigrant from Sudan's family would have to Australia's.
There are many other scenarios why a racially homogenous country is governed differently to a multi racial country. Voting segments being a large one. Just a quick example - Malaysia is multi racial and has a wide distribution of wealth. The major parties can debate on the lines of wealth segregation, left-right politics, economics but when the coalition is close to losing, they always manipulate the racial divide. All other issues matter not.
I'm not arguing for segregation of race but failing to recognize that race, heritage, nationality, religion all play a major part in the balance of power is simply being ignorant.
My position has thus far been consistent - any policies that is justified by claiming it is for societal good and requires human discretion is a bad policy.
@[Deactivated]: ok, sure you would push for the US model if you can. Good to know.
I agree that
race, heritage, nationality, religion all play a major part in the balance of power
but disagree here:
On the balance of probability it is infinitely more likely a Swiss in Switzerland would have contributed to their social safety nets than an immigrant from Sudan's family would have to Australia's.
2 points:
- do you have data to back it up?
- wouldn't it be Swiss citizen and Australian citizen? (or Anglo-Celtic citizen since they make up about 90% of the population)
My reading, backed by [Conservative] Government research [ https://cdn.tspace.gov.au/uploads/sites/107/2018/04/Shaping-… ] stated that among other things:
Migrants have a positive fiscal impact as they consume less in government services than they contribute to tax revenue
[…]This suggests that migration helped the economy successfully weather the Global Financial Crisis and the slow global growth and poor economic conditions that followed
neither wages nor the unemployment rate was affected by migration
Which seem to imply that your logic is faulty. and you haven't stated any other reason.
in short, this is what I hear you say: "Nordic model fails in Australia because Immigrants [or is it multiculture] does not contribute as much as an Australian citizen, unlike a Norwegian contribute to Norway" [correct me if I am mispresenting you]
The Government research conclusively denied the above point.
I am willing to accept the "Nordic model would not work because Australia is Multicultural/Full of immigrant" but you have yet to show the causal link. also, what is your definition of culturally diverse? I mean Norway is only 86.2% Norwegian [ as per here: https://web.archive.org/web/20130206040422/http://www.ssb.no… ] compare to Australian 89.9% Anglo-Celtic culture?I also just realized, did you claimed above that China is of the socialist model and also nobody knows how they work? I thought they are mutually exclusive, either we know that they follow socialist policies or we don't know what policies they follow? Or am I seeing things?
and if you are concerned about Venezuela taking people's stuff directly then it is more of a concern about authoritarian policies instead of socialist policies, isn't it?
How long would it take the Nordic countries to turn authoritarian, do you think?uhm you have yet to answer me that my statement "the US has […] atrocious human quality life year for a country with such high GPD per capita"is justified or not.
@Sortale: If the discussion requires data to prove a Somalian hasn't been through multiple generations in Switzerland, I think the debate has run its course.
References are called for if something is controversial. This is empirical.
in short, this is what I hear you say: "Nordic model fails in Australia because Immigrants [or is it multiculture] does not contribute as much as an Australian citizen, unlike a Norwegian contribute to Norway" [correct me if I am mispresenting you]
Misrepresenting. You stated that just being multiracial has little to do with governance. I drew an example where it does because safety nets are meant to provide a measure of financial safety should a contributor stopped being productive for whatever reason.
A newcomer obviously breaks that cycle as they are immediately entitled to the safety net without first contributing, whether as an individual or as an offspring of someone who has.
Norway is only 86.2% Norwegian [ as per here: https://web.archive.org/web/20130206040422/http://www.ssb.no… ] compare to Australian 89.9% Anglo-Celtic culture?
86.2% Norwegian - that's 86.2% of the same race.
89.9% Anglo-Celtic culture - that's an inequivalent comparison. It obviously doesn't mean 89.9% of Aussies are Anglo-Celtic so I'm not even sure what is included as Anglo-Celtic culture.
That's a very dodgy use of references.
I also just realized, did you claimed above that China is of the socialist model and also nobody knows how they work?
That's disingenuous. Just because we cannot confirm the undisclosed actions doesn't mean we cannot confirm state sanctioned policies and action.
uhm you have yet to answer me that my statement "the US has […] atrocious human quality life year for a country with such high GPD per capita"is justified or not.
Absolutely not. Atrocious human quality of life requires arbitrary definition of "quality of life" and to further obfuscate for the purpose of making this point, you've made a caveat of "for a country with such high GPD per capita".
It is a statement made with every intention to be unprovable, merely suggestible by collating hand picked data.
I suggest you look at number of people willing to sacrifice their entire livelihood for a chance to get into the US, vs those who claim "poverty" in the US attempting to leave.
Do you not agree that is at least equally as suggestive?
I think this debate has run its course. Thanks for your time.
@[Deactivated]: I provided data above that proved that if each generation pay for its own benefit, then immigrant contribute more to Australia than Australian citizens [since they contribute more than they take and the overall budget is in deficit -> Australian citizen took more than they contribute] -> which call in to question the statement "immigrant take more" which invalidate your statement as it is.
I stated above
Provided that we accept "Anglo-Celtic people are descended primarily from British and Irish people" as the definition
My statement is bound by the 17-19 tops countries which include the Nordic countries at the top, Australia at rank 10 and US at rank 18-19
I am saying Australia should follow policies that are similar to the top countries, instead of the bottom of the 17-19. [The existence of the 20-250 ranked countries' policies are irrelevant to my point, since none of us advocate for following them anyway]Just because there are people from rank 20-250 trying to go to rank 18-19 that we should modify our policies from rank 10 to rank 18-19.
Regardless, this has been beneficial to me, and I thank you for your time thus far. I hope you have a nice day.
@Sortale: Ah. Found this. Wanted to share it with you.
It is about the distinction between the Nordic model and socialism, and the flaws of this seemingly utopian model.
@[Deactivated]: many thanks. But I Thought you were the one who said that Sweden is socialist. The reason I am saying that they may be socialist is that Government spending per GPD is top of the world, government revenue is more than 50% of GPD. In short, the Nordic [Sweden included] government is the Nordic economy. Since it doesn't matter who owns the mean of production on paper if the profit mostly belongs to the government.
I don't care much whether they are socialist or not, I just want to know how the Nordic model can fail. so we can implement the good without the bad. I mean if saying that they are not socialist make you willing to try them or consider them in Australia, I would call it "Alakazam" model if you want.
Watching right now@Sortale: My exact words were
That is socialism (referring to the specific policies) but many Nordic countries will refuse to be associated with the word.
I believe many of their policies are socialist leaning but these countries do not want to be called socialist.
It doesn't mean they are socialist. It means they have socialist policies and the mini-doc explains why they do not consider themselves socialist.
The way the model fails is through overspending as per history and explanation in the video.
It's just a minidoc so a lot of the information required to make sense of the conclusion is not included.
10th man pulls out entertainment book.
That is company tax not individual income tax, but don't take my word for it. Here are some sources.
In 2016/17, the top 9% of individual tax filers paid 48% of income tax while the bottom 61% of individual tax filers paid 12% of income tax.
https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-…
In 2017/18, the wealthiest 20% of adults, taxfilers or households paid, 78.7%, 68.2%, 61.2% of ALL tax (according to the article) respectively.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-22/tax-paid-by-the-wealt…
In 2014/15, the top 10% of individual tax filers in the labour force paid 46% of all income tax while 10% of individual tax filers among working age adults paid 52% of all income tax.
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-50-of-all-income-ta…
Are these rich folks somehow avoiding tax but still paying a disproportionate amount of the tax burden?
Lol it would be like the 10th guy going to the toilet while the bill is paid. 😂
Thanks, will use this and post on other social medias for reference
But they now realised that the rich man had been hiding a large sum of wealth that he accumilated unfairly. So now, the 1st four do do not have to eat for free, but are still better off, same with 5,6,7, and 8, they now happy to pay a fraction higher but are still better off as they have more wealth to use.
Then they realised that all the men have been hiding the wealth they accumulated unfairly by embezzling from the 10th guy.
What a communist idea to think the person who has more has to be hoarding ill gotten gains.
Awesome!
except that the tenth man claim a deduction on everything possible under the sky so he ends up in the first group (pay nothing). so the other 5 men will have to bear $100.
Deductions are made against cost of doing business. The 10th man paid high personal income tax.
What deductions are you claiming he made?
@[Deactivated]: "cost of managing tax affairs" for example.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-30/sixty-nine-millionair…@Bargain80:
Let's assume these guys are dodgy.That makes 69 millionaires of the 1,160,000 millionaires in Australia.Edit - realised the title of the article you linked does not correspond in anyway to the content hence my conclusion is moot. Title refer to millionaires but content refers to people with income over a million. Not sure if the writer was referencing the former or the latter.
@[Deactivated]: If the tenth man is a doctor then he could use his meal entertainment card so he pays with pre tax dollars. There are ways.
@Mr Ayayay: The first 4 can also claim for managing tax affairs, problem is they dont pay tax. which comes back to the original point.
If you pay tax, you get benefits when tax is cut.
Those who claim, that the "rich" dont pay tax, and then are upset that the "rich" got a tax cut, just dont get it.
Only the "rich" who pay tax will get benefit, so you can't use the argument against the tax cut "that the rich dont pay Tax"
If you want to get on your high horse, how about
Public servants getting 17% super contribution, while wait staff, and others in private industry get less than 10% far more savings to be had here, that could assist the poorer workers.
You missed out the part where the tenth man spent $59 of his $1,000 salary, while the sixth man paid $3 off his $12 salary + benefits.
Also to pay for the tax cuts social benefits have been reduced.
So now the rich man still has $1,000 private income, while the sixth man now lives off $10 salary + benefits.
This is a good summary of income taxes, however there are other forms of tax that everyone has to pay.
You will pay 45c a litre tax on petrol.
Everything you buy, not matter how rich or poor you are is subject to 10% GST.Always a classic.
People must realize that there needs to be an incentive to becoming wealthy. If you simply want to bring everyone down and marginalize them for the hard work they've put in, then they may just stop doing all that hard work. That means less entrepreneurs, inventors, business owners etc to provide the goods we so desperately rely on. It also means less money flowing around the economy, which means less money for the government to collect to fund public services. For those that are already rich, they'll simply move elsewhere to a country that doesn't treat them like demons, and they'll take their buckets of money with them.
This is probably the smartest thing i've read on OzB are argue this deserves its own forum and should be posted to educate the masses!
Someone pin this at the top of the forum please
Logged in just to up vote. Bloody brilliant!
what happened to the eighth?
The problem being is the next night when the 10th didn't show up, the restaurant went out of business due to lack of income, and the tenth who made his money by providing services to restaurants went out of business due to lack of customers. Then the ninth man becomes the richest and the cycle repeats, with ever lower wages and productivity for all.
TLDR; The people doing the best have to pay the most or they get beat up and everyone loses. It doesn't matter whether this is 'fair' or not, it just is.
People act like money has an intrinsic value, it only has that value because we agree it does.
Because they pay a crap load more tax and offset the benefits you are already receiving.
You earn less, so you pay less tax, so you get less tax back.
Wwwwhat? You and your Damn logic again!
You can't give a tax cut to people who pay no tax tho.
I'm tossing up between all on Black or all on Red.
Double your odds and split it between both
What sad person negged this
I don't see your attempt at rectifying by adding a +!!! lol
@brendanm: How about 40% on Black, 40% on White, and 20% on 0 ??
You lose 100%, but then make back either 120% or 520%… so a net gain of +20% or +420%@Kangal: Just use the doubling method
Literally can't fail
(This is why there is a maximum allowed bet on the roulette table)
@greatlamp: Literally will fail, unless you have an infinite kitty. Don't think $1,080 qualifies as infinite. Google Martingale system.
@Kangal: How much do you think a roulette wheel pays out…? Black wins, you get $432 of winnings and your original $432 back, while you lost $648 spending on red and 0. Same scenario for red. Net loss of $216
0 wins, you get $7,776, and lose your $864 you spent on red and black. Net gain of $6,912
35/36 * -$216 + 1/36 * $6,912 = -$210 + $192 = expected return of -$18
Who would have thought, the maths shows roulette is a losing proposition…
@wty707: I'm not a betting man, but the off-time I did play Roulette there was a rule that you can only bet on a single Outside bet (eg Red or Black, not both) so you can't double your chances. However the pay out was triple. So if you played Black for $100, lost the first time, played Black $100 again, you would've lost $200 but made $300 in return. Only problem is the number Zero which is not covered by either Red or Black.
I'm not sure if these are standard rules, but I've heard other people mention the same payouts as well. But a friend of mine suggested you could rig the game by having an anonymous three people party always betting on Zero, Red, Black, and making a net gain of money, though we knew it would be too obvious and land you in trouble.
@Kangal: The house would lose money over time if they were paying out triple on bets where you had ~48.65% chance of winning. The house ALWAYS wins over time. If they were paying triple, betting $1 on either red or black 1000 times (and sticking to the same one) you would win ~$1459.5
Black
No - Red!
Just to be clear, this is a tax cut on tax you paid, not a handout regardless of what tax you paid like what happened about 10 years ago right?
Yes, the mainstream media headlines are misleading. It's to offset your tax. So if you owed $1080 to the ATO for underpaid tax for the year, your net return would be $0 if you were eligible for the full $1080 offset.
Is it not deducted from your taxable income like the regular low income tax offset is? Happy to be proven wrong.
Why 1080 not 4k ? (Resolution)
It's 2018, 1440 should be the minimum. This is why we should've voted Green instead /s
It's 2019 tho…
Shut up and take my upvote.
I would've preferred getting $4,000 instead, yep.
Who its spending it on hecs repayments?
What's the point? It's only indexed.
Those who lack financial understanding.
You'll be surprised how many accountants think it's a great idea to pay off HECS asap… welcome to my life of dealing with these people lol
That’s mainly due to the changes in the lending laws, HECS that is active (payments from those above the repayment threshold) is classed as a debt. Hence, the drop in house prices and interest rates doesn’t automatically mean people can get a mortgage or business loan.
Who its spending it on hecs repayments?
Said no one ever…
sometimes ppl like to feel they're debt free….
Me. The LNP decreased the income at which you need to repay HECs, with overtime and bonus my income slipped over the threshold, so it didn't come out each fortnight. In the 19-20 tax year it's down to $45k that you have to start repaying at. They've reduced the amount you need to pay when you're on higher incomes, so in the 19-20 tax year I should end up paying less than I would have in 17-18 on the same income.
This may help you understand how much you may receive: https://www.budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/estimator/incometa…
Note it is calculated on taxable income.
Ha ha, looks like a cup of coffee per week for me …
believe you get it in a lump sum
So like 500 cups of coffee on 1 day
It pays for Spotify yay
Thank you, everyone thinks they're getting a $1080 refund full stop.
I'll use my "free" money when I go out shopping with my "free" car or just do it online in the comfort of my "free" home.
Gonna get it all in $5 notes then make it rain cos that's how I roll.
Get it in 5c pieces and try for concussion
Surely using 20c or 50c coins give you the most bang for your buck?
Might have to get Mythbusters in to experiment
Paying for what I already spent
I'll save the lot, just out of spite of the government.
If you really want to spite the government, get it cashed out in 5 cent coins
Brand new ones that cost them 6 cents each?
In about 2007?/2008? Kevin gave me $900 and i got a new tv lounge chair actually made in a Perth factory.
It is about 11 years old now so i want to buy a new tv chair from same Perth factory
….helping local sandgroper workers
Pretty sure Herald Sun had a vox pop back then and a dude said he spent it on ladies….
$1,000 is not enough to stimulate the economy. The government is obsessed with getting the budget back to balance over stimulous spending to save our economy. And also to balance their budget, they are sacrificing pensioner's income by refusing to reduce deeming rates as has always been historically done. This is appalling. And then they will beat their chests and say that they got the budget back to balance, and that they are great economic managers. I have zero respect for a bunch of lying politician, and none are leaders that I would follow into war….. I feel a little better now :(
got a few restaurants that have been on the wish list, Might take the Darl out for a few nice meals
why doesn't your darl take you out from her $1080?
Panties dropped