Who Is Going to Pay for All This?

Trying2SaveABuck on 07/04/2020 - 22:16
Last edited 07/04/2020 - 23:08

Who is going to pay for all this sh!t?

With sweeping policies regarding government spending aimed at helping businesses and unemployed during COVID19

The government is having over 700m to airlines (probably more in the end if virgin gets cash too)

130billion in their job seeker program

Millions more in beefed up welfare payments

On top of that extra funding is urgently needed to our healthcare system incase this crisis worsens

Over 1-2million jobs will be lost and unemployment is tipped it hit around 10%

Pretty much every industry bleeding money it asking for a hand out

Keep in mind we just had horrible bushfires….

When this is all said and done who is going to pay for this?

I agree with most of what the government is trying to do because desperate times call for desperate measures though i cant help but feel that we will be incredibility screwed for generations to come…eventually the dust will settle and who will fit the tab because we will essentially be in the worst financial position Australia has been in most of our lifetimes…. And unlike the GFC we aren’t in a mining boom to help us out…

Update

ill add this should Australia stop all international aid, refugee re-settlement programs and essentially humanitarianism for at least the next 5 years?

Financial

Comments

      • Yawhae on 08/04/2020 - 09:56
        +10

        He's just upset that his early retirement won't happen now because his super portfolio is in a massive hole.

  • UFO on 08/04/2020 - 08:07
    +28

    The Liberal Party got into power by Abbott scaring the bejesus out of the country in regards to Labor's "Debt that your grandchildren will be paying for".

    That debt amount? $175 Billion.

    Liberals debt as of October 2018? $354 Billion…. and rising.

    We are now fast approaching $1 trillion dollars. ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!

    And it's amazing how there hasn't been a mention of it at all. The absolute fear and horror portrayed by Liberals as Labor's inability to manage the budget was monumentally over-exaggerated to the point where they almost talked the country into a recession.

    Now we are multiples of levels higher than that, and Morrison is going nuts spending billions more under the guise of stimulus.

    Speaking of which, when you look at how much Labor spent 2008-2010 propping up the economy (and getting crucified for it years later), the current spending by Liberal's is off the charts crazy.

    People need to wake up and see what's going on. LIBERAL'S DO NOT WANT TO RELEASE A BUDGET!?!? Are you kidding me??? No accountability on the spending at all??
    For the same mob that gives half a billion to an organisation that never asked for it to 'Save The Barrier Reef'?
    Or the sports rorts to actually win the election?
    Or the pork-barreling to move government areas to particular electorates?

    We have incompetent criminals running the place, and no-one seems to care because COVID-19. That's much scarier than any epidemic.

    • Yawhae on 08/04/2020 - 10:00
      +12

      No one cares because the media feeds us lies. It's hard for the common person to distinguish those lies when most media outlets are singing the same tune. I think you'd see a massive change in the way politics are addressed in this country if Rupert Murdochs media monopoly was broken up.

      • 91rs on 08/04/2020 - 10:06
        -1

        There would be another to fill the void, cue ABC and SBS to pull government lines on whatever they are told to report etc.

        • abb on 08/04/2020 - 10:30
          +7

          ABC and SBS to pull government lines

          The same ABC that was raided by the AFP because they published politically inconvenient facts?

          Stop propogating this bad faith argument to discredit the ABC please.

            • abb on 08/04/2020 - 16:37
              +5

              @freakatronic: Ironically, the less you pay ABC staff, the more socially-minded (aka left-leaning) they will tend to be, as only those people with an interest in sacrificing money in service to 'the greater good' will remain. The self-interested (aka right-leaning) will leave for bigger paycheques at News & Sky.

              If you want more right-leaning stuff on the ABC, increase their funding.

              Of course, the right-wing parties will never increase their funding because of ideological reasons (including, but certainly not limited to, objective facts becoming more and more associated with 'the left' by the hard-right).

              Feel free to refer to this theorem as "abb's paradox". Thanks for listening to my TED talk.

              • freakatronic on 08/04/2020 - 17:07
                +2

                @abb: Nonsense. There are plenty of billionaire lefties. What are you even talking about?

                "Only the poor are noble enough for leftism." Nonsense. It becomes expedient to flip commie once you've made a few billion.

          • ngengerous on 08/04/2020 - 14:03
            +3

            @abb: Unfortunately as government funded organisations, they won't ever be fully impartial. They need to keep their funding, so they won't ever go as harsh as they could if they were fully independant.

    • 91rs on 08/04/2020 - 10:06
      +1

      Totally because Labor would have been able to solve all of our problems without spending a cent right.
      The illusion of choice and that one is better than the other is dangerous, neither really have whats best in mind for the country and are trying to do what they think will work. If that includes looking after their mates (both sides) if they can get away with it (and often do) they will.

      Sometimes money needs to be spent, 2020 has been one of those times, few would have wanted any of this to play out.

      • UFO on 08/04/2020 - 10:13
        +11

        That's not what I'm saying mate. I know money needs to be spent…. I support that. But there has to be accountability- and that's been sorely missing over the last few years. Obscene amounts of money being moved around, and if not for programs like Four Corners or ABC investigations, none of the other mainstream media has actual journalists that'll do investigative interviewing and research anymore. There's a massive whole in accountability.

        • UFO on 08/04/2020 - 22:32

          excuse me… *hole.

          I DO know the difference, but must have had a brain fart typing the above sentence :).

      • ThithLord on 08/04/2020 - 10:15
        +4

        Bruv you are insanely delusional - can you please point to Labor's policies which, in your mind, are one and the same with the Liberals? Instead of looking at the them as synonymous ideologies, why not look at what their policies are and how they are INSANELY differing from the Liberals?

      • [Deactivated] on 08/04/2020 - 11:31
        +6

        If that includes looking after their mates (both sides) if they can get away with it (and often do) they will.

        Wow I guess they are exactly the same!!! /s

        No kidding mate that's what literally anyone in power does.

        The good news? One of these groups has WORKERS as their mates. The other has BIG BUSINESS as their mates. Which one would you rather be looked after?

      • dylan345 on 08/04/2020 - 12:21
        +7

        no offence but labor did get us through two global recessions untouched and had the Aus dollar valued at more then the USD dollar imo whatever they did was working

  • x2r9ypbj on 08/04/2020 - 08:15
    -8

    What about Socialist Dan Victoria china roads/belts is hiding all this stuff. Won't complain against China
    is a weekling shows no guts and won't speak out.Nor will he take a pay cut . All socialists should emergrate
    to china, north korea ect

      • one man clan on 08/04/2020 - 08:38
        +22

        What is wrong with you? Were you dropped on your head as a baby?

      • Watto23 on 08/04/2020 - 09:11
        +4

        Seriously delusional. Have you seen how the USA operates. Have you seen how rich China is. How many millionaires actually live in China.

      • smartazz104 on 08/04/2020 - 11:01
        -1

        And you'd still be lining up for welfare.

    • ngengerous on 08/04/2020 - 14:05
      +2

      I've read this comment multiple times over, and I still can't understand what you're trying to say.

  • Hirolol on 08/04/2020 - 08:25

    What other choice is there?

  • dajackal on 08/04/2020 - 09:06

    Will it be like a flood levy or a budget repair levy but 100x worse?

    If so I'm out.

  • berry580 on 08/04/2020 - 09:08

    Of course the tax payers are, who else??

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 08/04/2020 - 09:21
    +18

    WHY ISN'T ANYONE THINKING ABOUT LANDLORDS

    /s

    • worrierwan on 08/04/2020 - 11:12
      +3

      I love this comment

  • HeWhoKnows on 08/04/2020 - 09:22
    +3

    The RBA is paying for this by just printing money
    This devalues our dollar and our assets so in the end everyone pays!

    • dylan345 on 08/04/2020 - 12:14

      well assets eventually get asset inflation lagging behind currency inflation of course.

      In other words the dollar will go down thus assets becomes worth more dollars.

      And to be fair inflation has been historically low for the last decade probably just all going to catch up at once with this crisis being the trigger

  • Oipjo on 08/04/2020 - 09:30
    +11

    Well, I'm still working and still paying taxes not expecting to see a single cent - since starting my career earning I've always missed every government payout by a hairs width; when Medicare Levy was introduced; I'd just two weeks prior got a rise from absolute scrub wages to a 'decent' pay; seeing me needing to pay right away. Six years ago was working for much less than Centrelink was giving job seekers at the time, now they're getting much more; and 'job keepers' are earning much more than I've made for 80% of my full time career. Finally get ahead, and government subs everyone else.

    Such is life - I'll just keep contributing away! Pay $40k in wage taxes, and still get a tax bill of another $5-10k. Once my back goes from all the 'carrying'; I'm sure that the medical will be forced out of my pocket too. At least they're StImULaTInG ThE EcOnOMy.

    In all fairness; I understand economically why the lower income receive benefits, and government should be funding this - it makes sense - but can be frustrating when you're always JUST ahead of the curve; and everyone is so entitled, but you keep putting in the work, and never see anything; and my money earned goes back into giving people work too… Tax relief one year would be a nice thing but never going to see that happen; so I'll just keep plodding along and paying my taxes.

    Once I make it to retirement, at least if I make smart choices for the remainder of my life; I'll be asset tested and just miss out on the savings given by a pensioner card.

    For those who make terrible choices, they'll be given government subsidies, pensioner cards, discounts, and will be able to spend time with their kids which they've had plenty of time to procreate.

    • dajackal on 08/04/2020 - 09:45
      +14

      the government thanks you for your sacrifice.

      • Vert93 on 08/04/2020 - 10:34
        +4

        Thank you for your contribution comrade Oipjo

    • Emerald Owl on 08/04/2020 - 13:43

      It would be worse if there was full blown socialism

    • OzzyBrak on 09/04/2020 - 00:22
      +3

      If you're paying 50K in income taxes a year, you are now earning $160,000 a year.
      You're also saying for most of your working life you have be paid less than $39,000 a year? (Job Keeper $1,500 a fortnight x 26 = $39,000)

      You should be counting your blessings, not having a sook about not getting a Government payment. You're still employed and earning $120,000 a year more than someone who has lost their job in this crisis and relying on the Job Keeper payment to keep food on the table.

    • lowlifesphere on 09/04/2020 - 11:34
      +1

      This is the sacrifice hard working individuals must make to prevent us from spiralling into a dog eat dog world.

    • xdigger on 16/04/2020 - 21:40

      This in a nutshell is why Australia is still relatively undeveloped and underpopulated compared to our more industrious counterparts in the continental USA which has the same landmass as us.

  • Mark1159 on 08/04/2020 - 09:36

    Still owe money for Great Depression. 1930s debt of “six million pounds” not a huge worry now.

    • popsiee on 08/04/2020 - 09:47
      +2

      Did you forget the compound interest .
      I heard that Kinder Garden economics has a place remaining !

  • 91rs on 08/04/2020 - 09:59
    +8

    Well from other threads here its pretty damn clear the landlords and investors will be refusing to do anything to help!

    • abb on 08/04/2020 - 10:32
      +6

      * some landlords and investors

    • dylan345 on 08/04/2020 - 12:18
      +3

      as a landlord I will do as much as I can to help my tenants I've even helped them fill out centerlink forms in between jobs but if I go bankrupt or the banks make a large call then they will suffer too, I think the old saying is "shit rolls down hill"

      • ngengerous on 08/04/2020 - 14:13

        Damn straight. If the landlords can't pay their mortgage, what do the tenants think will happen to their housing? It's just a rough situation for all involved.

        • Technics on 08/04/2020 - 21:34
          +2

          So what you're saying is that the banks will repo it and burn it the ground? Thereby removing it from the supply of available housing?

  • [Deactivated] on 08/04/2020 - 10:09

    We are going to pay for it. Lives > Money

  • petry on 08/04/2020 - 10:17
    +5

    government gave everything away to the minority wealthy and the majority will pay with lives and lower incomes for the rest of their lives. America first politics at their finest.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 08/04/2020 - 10:48

      They gave everything away to the 'minority' they gave money to both the top 10% and the bottom 10% but fcuk over the rest of us if you ask me

      but i do agree with your sentiment most of the money is going to business owners who in the end of the day are probably getting more then they deserve in regards to support and the everyday working Aussies are probably getting the most shafted - if a business doesnt have enough capital to survive 6 months of hardship i dont know why the government is expected to prop-up these businesses?

      The stimulus should be been to EVERYONEs benefits not just the rich not just the poor but everyone - we have all lost money due to this virus and i dont agree with the way the government has tackled the economic issues

      However when i listen to the opposition talk about causal workers, gig economy and ever every bludger and their dog needing a handout i cant say we would of done better with Albo

      • p1 ama on 08/04/2020 - 14:02

        if a business doesnt have enough capital to survive 6 months of hardship i dont know why the government is expected to prop-up these businesses?

        You're still thinking of this as a moral issue. It's not a moral issue. You have to think about the two states of the world - what happens with and without a bailout.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 08/04/2020 - 14:07
          +1

          Well the remaining businesses/companies in the market of that sector will take that businesses market share and/or another business will rise up to profit from the raised opportunity - sure this cant apply to every industry but in most cases i assume that is what would happen

          Ie if there a 3 restaurants in a town and one goes broke the other two will get a share of that businesses customers if there is demand for another restaurant in the future then another restaurants can/will open up eventually or else the reality of the situation is the town probably could on sustain two restaurants in the long term….

          Isn't that how a free market works?

          perhaps i am wrong but im happy to be advised differently

          • p1 ama on 08/04/2020 - 15:20
            +1

            @Trying2SaveABuck:

            Isn't that how a free market works?

            Not really, it's probably what's taught in first year micro, but it's not really an accurate representation of reality because our markets aren't independent like that.

            When you have 3 restaurants and one collapses, there's a reduction in competition, which potentially increases prices, there will now be less buyers of the upstream goods so it's likely that suppliers will also be harmed. People will lose their jobs and will have go to on welfare (news flash, you pay for that)…etc.

            if there is demand for another restaurant in the future then another restaurants can/will open up eventually

            Yes, but that ignores the cost of opening up a new restaurant that now has to be borne by the new owner that has already been paid by the old owner who went out of business. Keeping a business open is cheaper than starting a new business.

            You can also make the argument from a capital perspective as well. If you allow businesses to collapse, society loses a lot because of the capital investment that was made with that business. Then there's also all of the contagion effects as well.

            Again, I stress that this isn't a moral issue. Whether businesses deserve to be saved is irrelevant. The question is what is the cost/benefit analysis of bailing out certain businesses. That decision can be made on a case-by-case basis.

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 08/04/2020 - 15:24

              @p1 ama: Fair enough I enjoy your comments because it is factual and not emotive like some other OPs

              I would argue in the same scenario there is also benefit ie the rent for the commercial properties might drop due to an extra opening due to reduce competition price of the other two restaurants might go down due to increase influx of customers thus overheads have stayed the same but business has gone up then in the senario a new business eventually opens might be a better business then the old business thus creating more jobs, taxes etc there are reasons businesses fall and i know COVID19 is a extreme situation have a bad 6 months in any business is pretty normal and ill stay by the fact i feel if a business goes under because it isnt set to weather a 6month storm i dont know if they deserve to survive…

              I do take what you're saying about it being a case by case basis but the government has blanket handed out tone of cash and i dont know the ins-and-outs of it but it seems that it is pretty ez to access and very ez to rip off the system which i can almost guarantee it will get rorted by at lease a decent % of applicants

              • p1 ama on 09/04/2020 - 03:37
                +1

                @Trying2SaveABuck:

                there are reasons businesses fall and i know COVID19 is a extreme situation have a bad 6 months in any business is pretty normal and ill stay by the fact i feel if a business goes under because it isnt set to weather a 6month storm i dont know if they deserve to survive…

                You're still coming back around to making moral arguments.

                Let me phrase this a different way that might help you understand. Your neighbour's house is on fire. You hate your neighbour and you don't care whether his house burns down. In fact, it might even make you happy because maybe a new, better neighbour may move in. However, if his house burns down, your house is likely to burn down as well.

                If your neighbour can't afford a hose to fight the fire, would you lend him your hose? Hopefully you answer yes. Not because you think your neighbour deserves to be bailed out (after all, it's his responsibility for not having a hose, right?), not because you are fond of him or you want him saved, but because if you don't bail him out, you are putting yourself at risk. It's not that hard to understand. This is the exact same situation in the economy now.

                If you answer no, then I have nothing more to add because you're placing your emotions over rationality and there's no reasoning with that.

            • Dogsrule on 09/04/2020 - 14:16

              @p1 ama: So how does this perspective fit in with the 'Moral Hazard' argument? Should a society continue to bail out low value, inefficient businesses to avoid some short term pain in exchange for long term wastage of resources and capital due to the ongoing operation of these inefficient businesses?

              Doesn't that just incentivise poor economic decisions to the detriment of society?

              • p1 ama on 09/04/2020 - 14:51
                +1

                @Dogsrule:

                Should a society continue to bail out low value, inefficient businesses to avoid some short term pain in exchange for long term wastage of resources and capital due to the ongoing operation of these inefficient businesses?

                That's not really the right way to think about it. Again, take my prior example. Just because your neighbour was dumb, stupid or inefficient, that doesn't mean that it's not in your personal interest to lend him your hose.

                Yes, you could make the argument that by lending him your hose, you are essentially disincentivising anybody from purchasing a hose. But that's why you can impose regulations on businesses and say that everyone needs to own a hose, every driver needs car insurance…etc.

                Also, make no mistake, this is not short term pain. We are talking about effects that could last many, many decades. It will be reflected in you having to pay welfare to those who lost their jobs, a reduction tax revenue, many falling into poverty, many kids dropping out of school because their parents become homeless, those going into lives of crime, increased drug abuse and health problems. All of these issues, ultimately, fall back onto society.

                • Dogsrule on 09/04/2020 - 20:22
                  +1

                  @p1 ama: So, if I’m reading this right, you believe that the pragmatic benefits of bailouts outweigh the negative impacts to society of letting these inefficient businesses fail. For the record, given that we’re in the midst of an economic emergency, I think you’re probably right, as much as I hate to admit it.

                  I am still however concerned about negative feedback loops developing whereby poor business models are bailed out during economic crisis, leading to long term wastage of resources and capital by these poor business models which, left in their natural state, would have fallen prey to superior counterparts, causing another economic crisis, bailout, rinse repeat.

                  Anyway, if bailouts are necessary to keep the economic ponzi scheme going, can we please stop with the myth of “Free Market Capitalism”. Businesses hate competition, and will socialise their costs while privatising their profits as much as they can. Business people are as much Socialists as any Bernie Sanders supporter, any Greens voter, any ‘dole bludger’. Lets call out these failing businesses for what they are - dole bludgers on a grand scale.

                  • p1 ama on 09/04/2020 - 22:27
                    +1

                    @Dogsrule:

                    pragmatic benefits of bailouts outweigh the negative impacts to society of letting these inefficient businesses fail

                    Yes, and I don't think this is particularly a controversial point. Anyway, we agree on this so let's discuss the other points.

                    I am still however concerned about negative feedback loops developing whereby poor business models are bailed out during economic crisis, leading to long term wastage of resources and capital by these poor business models which, left in their natural state, would have fallen prey to superior counterparts, causing another economic crisis, bailout, rinse repeat.

                    I agree with you, which is why I don't think that a blanket bailout is a particularly good idea. However, this is where you can design a policy which does better. For example, let's suppose that a business is short of cash and is about to fire 1,000 people who are going to go on welfare. You could just give a cash bailout to the business, but they might fire those people anyway. So rather, you can do a partial wage subsidy with conditions that the business not fire anyone. People keep their jobs, you reduce the burden on the welfare system…etc.

                    Anyway, if bailouts are necessary to keep the economic ponzi scheme going, can we please stop with the myth of “Free Market Capitalism”.

                    We don't have "free market capitalism" because we are already socialising the losses regardless of whether a business survives or not. That's what I've been trying to say all along. When a business fails, we'll lose tax revenue, its employees will go on welfare, its suppliers and customers may be harmed…etc.

                    That's why I've been saying that you can't just compare bailout vs. $0, you need to compare bailout vs. what the cost would be without the bailout.

                    • Dogsrule on 10/04/2020 - 11:50
                      +1

                      @p1 ama: Righto, so I presume you're pretty happy with the Job Keeper payment, as it's a targeted bailout, benefits flowing more towards people rather than businesses. I think I get where you're coming from here.

                      On your point about socialization of business failures. Of course society bears the burden of job losses through loss of tax revenue, welfare payments and so on when a bad business is allowed to fail, that's a natural process. My issue lies with socializing the costs of poor business models to shield them from failure during bad times, whilst the owners/shareholders get to pocket the profits in good times. Let them fail!

                      Surely the cost to society of letting bad businesses fail is lower than the cost of subsidizing their ongoing operation. Sure, during times of extreme economic emergency such as now, it may be pragmatic to suspend those rules temporarily, but they should only ever be a last resort exception to the rule to prevent wholesale economic collapse, and the bailed-out businesses should have to repay that public money (our money) out of their profits during the good times.

                      Anyway, I think I've made my point, and I appreciate many of yours, thanks for listening.

      • trapper on 08/04/2020 - 15:37
        +1

        if a business doesnt have enough capital to survive 6 months of hardship i dont know why the government is expected to prop-up these businesses?

        If you want a non-economic (moral) reason.

        The government had the opportunity to close borders and implement a quarantine before the virus took hold in Australia, it failed to do this in time.

        As a consequence of that many business and workers have been negatively impacted. So now the government has a duty to support them.

  • PaperplaneXXX on 08/04/2020 - 10:46
    +3

    of course we are gonna pay! taxpayers!
    And also the fact that Aust Government over the past 28 years has relied and promoted heavily the property bubble and all those transactions as the main driver for economic growth not manufacturing, production.
    Instead, those industries slowly dying and outsourced overseas.

    Whats the future? I don't think its bright guys.
    Sorry for being pessimistic.

  • Lado on 08/04/2020 - 10:57
    +2

    "Who IS Going to Pay for All This?"

    We WILL be paying for sure as taxpayers

    Who SHOULD be Paying for All This? - "Incompetent criminals running the place"

  • petry on 08/04/2020 - 11:07
    -1

    we will continue to pay for the Australian bio warfare lab for sure - America first requisite.

  • lltravel on 08/04/2020 - 11:09

    I like how you ask this question

    Do you ask that question if we ever go to war?

    No one seems to ask that question.

    • petry on 08/04/2020 - 11:33

      we fight for America - we die for America - that's how it is.

      Border controls are for Australians not American force personnel - they come and go as they please.

  • cocomelon on 08/04/2020 - 11:35
    +1

    please excuse my stupid question, i wonder how the currency will do to US with the late intervention from US has cost them one of the highest death rate in the world.
    if they are entering to GFC or longer unstable economy due to COVID and if AUS exit or stabilise this nightmare earlier would it bounced back against USD?

    • petry on 08/04/2020 - 11:47
      +2

      We are broke now - spent up- in debt to our eyeballs - we will give up public health care - import nuclear waste - and we have bugger all to sell. Australia is no longer independent - we are done.

  • dylan345 on 08/04/2020 - 12:00
    +10

    "foreign aid" isn't what most people think it is, we imagine it as giving away money to help others, actually they are us trading money for special things like trade routes, information, diplomatic power, trade deals, import taxes lowered and in general things that need lengthy easy to break contracts with other countries under the title of foreign aid,

    Trust me no country wants to give away money for nothing there is always a strong hidden agenda that benefits us. So stopping "foreign aid" would only weaken Australia's economy.

    • Oofy Doofy on 08/04/2020 - 15:39

      Is this actually the case, or you believe it to be due to assumptions? Genuine question

      • meumax on 10/04/2020 - 11:42
        +1

        Yes this is the real world.

        When Australia slowed “aid” to pacific nations, China upped their “aid”. Next came rumours of China directly funding ports in pacific island nations and other infrastructure. This is a national security threat to Australia and thankfully the government recognised the danger and quietly restored funding to these islands in return for not dealing with China.

        Aid is the part of the price we pay to maintain our sphere of influence in our territory. Looked at in this way, aid is an arm of defence policy. A form of what they call “soft” power to compliment our “hard” power planes, submarines and ships.

        Why do you think we care so much about helping Indonesia when they have disasters and getting chummy with them? Answer, because anyone wanting to invade us has to go through them. If they were hostile to us they could host staging areas and bases for the enemy but if they’re friendly then they act as a blocker between any enemies and Australia.

    • Pimpiticians 4 Life on 08/04/2020 - 22:46

      Foreign aid is buying billions of dollars worth of overpriced under-performing junk F-35s described by people in the industry as flying lemons.

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148585/Pentagon-sa…

    • Scamwatcher on 09/04/2020 - 00:10

      "Cancel foreign aid" always sounds like someone trying to say "I don't like helping people that aren't white"

  • FreeUyghur on 08/04/2020 - 12:14
    -4

    Chinese Goverment. Full Stop.

  • Brendoo on 08/04/2020 - 12:17
    +1

    It will be paid by increased taxes and reduction in govt spending.
    And no, we should not stop our aid to other countries, that could have dire political and financial impacts. And we have an international obligation to accept refugees and should continue to do that.

  • websterp on 08/04/2020 - 12:30
    +8

    Who else, just the hard working, law abiding and tax paying middle class! The big corporations are virtually untouchable - Look what happened to the Mining Tax

    I have no issue with the majority of the genuine recipients of these grants and allowances, may it be an individual or a small business but what frustrates me most is how a considerable portion of these payments would be gamed like with any other government subsidy and go into the hands of people who are already rorting the system and the government would more likely look away as their limited resources are tied up with other priorities these days.

    I make a decent living, do two jobs and pay the right amount of tax and did not receive a single dollar as part of the recent handouts and I'm Ok with it. I'm absolutely certain I would have to pay more personnel income tax in one form or the other in the future as the government would most likely introduce new taxes or increase existing ones in order to recoup most of the extra money they would be spending through the next 6 months. On the other hand I know of someone running a small business in a niche trade and makes easily over $5K a week, 90% of this accepted as cash. On the books he only shows around $35K/annum and as a result proudly holds a low income card. Low and behold, these days he has started taking almost all payments in cash so he could show his already low income has dropped even further due to Covid-19 and to make him eligible to receive state and federal government support for small businesses. I was sick to my stomach even before he devised this new scam and dobbed him in twice to the ATO but the government did sweet FA.

    • kahn on 08/04/2020 - 12:58

      Good comments, but just an FYI - it is "Lo and behold".

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 08/04/2020 - 13:24

      @webstrep that is exactly how i think too

    • sarahlump on 08/04/2020 - 18:02

      A number of businesses do this as well because they have no interest in selling the business later, ring it till it's dry and throw it away.(you cant sell a business if it has no documentable revenue)

    • Pimpiticians 4 Life on 09/04/2020 - 00:01

      Thats chump change this bloke needs to be promoted.
      Good to see you are helping the government recruit new workers - Im sure he would fit in real well at the treasury.

  • lonewolf on 08/04/2020 - 12:31
    +7

    Considering all the evidence and even Chinese government admitting that they knew about it 6-8 weeks and had tried to hide it (they blamed lower officials for it) and shut down doctors and journalists who spoke up about this new virus. They should be the ones who pays for it all. If they had listened, they could have caught it early before it spread and the amount of lives they could have saved plus all the people who are affected by job losses and economically. Its a joke, if one person did this, they would be hanged for it…but when a government does it…

    • petry on 08/04/2020 - 12:49
      -4

      The most likely source of the virus is the USA.

      Having spent over 100 billion dollars since 2002 - conservative estimate - and labs all over the world - including here - American bio-warfare is the most probable author.

      factor in the US's well known and documented tactic of live testing on American's on home soil - including sending anthrax to senators voting against the patriot act - this is the most logical source.

      Covid has achieved trillions of dollars to the richest in America, slaughtered thousands of foreigners the right wing of America deems enemies - which is everyone really, and effectively bankrupted countries such as ourselves courtesy of our America first government. We are now sold up and sold out to the yanks. A highly successful strategy made possible by an ill informed populace and a traitorous media.

      • websterp on 08/04/2020 - 12:52
        +4

        BTW you forgot to mention 5G Towers!

        • kahn on 08/04/2020 - 13:03

          BTW you forgot to mention 5G Towers the twin towers and tower 7.

          Fixed.

      • lonewolf on 08/04/2020 - 12:55

        If you look at the economics / stock markets etc. China has come out of this extremely well compared to the vast majority of other major markets.

        • petry on 08/04/2020 - 13:12

          You are not looking at the overall wealth of America, and the super rich that run it. Neither are you factoring in all the legislation passed all over the world restricting movements, and removing personal freedoms, most of which will never be removed. We have no parliament currently, and no proper cabinet - we are run by Scomo and his secret handlers. A new dark age has been introduced to assist the control of likely manmade pandemic, designed and promoted to cause panic.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 08/04/2020 - 13:14
        +5

        How many rolls of tinfoil did you go through to assemble your hat?

        • petry on 08/04/2020 - 13:20

          'It was this key information that helped the FBI to rule out the likelihood that a terrorist organization was behind the anthrax mailings and prompted the agency to turn its attention to U.S. government labs as the possible source of the anthrax. This move eventually led the agency to conclude that Bruce Ivins, a scientist at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), a federal biodefense research laboratory at Fort Detrick, Md., who initially assisted with the investigation, was the culprit. Ivins, 62, two months ago committed suicide as prosecutors prepared to charge him in connection with the mailings.'

          'the mysterious mailings, which killed five people, injured 17 and prompted thousands more who were potentially exposed to the deadly spores'

  • tsunamisurfer on 08/04/2020 - 12:59
    +1

    Taxpayers will be responsible for paying this back.

    That in itself is not a bad thing.

    But we have a situation in Australia where half the households are net receivers from the government (ie they receive more in benefits than pay in taxes).

    So it falls on the other half of Australian taxpayers to make the repayments.

    So I fear it will only be on the mid to high income earners this will fall on.

    I would hope the government looks over at the broader community for this resolution.

    Welfare cut backs should be a priority once this is over.

    • kahn on 08/04/2020 - 13:04
      +3

      Social or corporate welfare?

    • petry on 08/04/2020 - 13:13
      +1

      source?

      • tsunamisurfer on 08/04/2020 - 13:51
        +4

        https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2016/may/12…

        https://www.news.com.au/national/welcome-to-the-welfare-nati…

        https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-…

        If we rank our 100 people by their taxable incomes:

        people with the top three taxable incomes paid 30% of all net tax
        the next six paid 18% of all net tax
        the next 30 paid 40% of all net tax
        the next 36 paid 12% of all net tax
        the last 25 didn't pay any tax.

        See the stats from the ATO above :
        - 9% of people pay 48% of taxation.
        - The bottom 61% pay 12% of taxation.

        The bottom half of Australia always get help and never takes responsibility for funding the country.

        • sarahlump on 08/04/2020 - 17:59
          +2

          poor people have less to give. Rich people have more to give. Rich people should give more. Being rich isn't an inoculation against paying a fair amount.

        • Technics on 08/04/2020 - 23:22
          +3

          The whole point of arrangements like negative gearing, various other accounting tricks/tax minimization schemes and superannuation concessions is to reduce taxable income. It's not a perfect proxy for wealth. RIP Kerry Packer. He was probably in the bottom half. Certainly the burden will fall to those with middle to upper taxable incomes. That's progressive taxation. I've payed way more then I've ever received (or probably ever will) and if it starts to really bother me I'll aim for that demotion to satisfy my downward envy.

    • Baysew on 08/04/2020 - 13:54
      +2

      I would hope the government looks over at the broader community for this resolution.

      Government should not get into fat shaming.

    • freakatronic on 08/04/2020 - 13:58
      +2

      Can't get votes by cutting welfare. The only way is up once a payment to the parasite class is made - raise the payment.

      • sarahlump on 08/04/2020 - 17:57
        +5

        Sounds like mummy and daddy told you poor people suck.

        • freakatronic on 08/04/2020 - 18:11
          +2

          Mummy and daddy are poor people, but they worked. I am poor people, and I work. Nothing wrong with being poor. However, there's everything wrong with being a parasite.

          • sarahlump on 08/04/2020 - 18:25
            +4

            @freakatronic: Oh darling, perhaps you should speak to the 100's of slaves in sweatshops making your clothes that you're parasitically living off.

            • freakatronic on 08/04/2020 - 18:32
              +1

              @sarahlump: Sorry didn't realise you're that deep. Enjoy your next die-in.

              Hashtag latestagecapitalism

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join