Reposting this deal as I received a back in stock email earlier today!
Yes I’ll wait for the negs to start rolling in….
Enjoy!
Free “We Love Our Medicare” Bumper Sticker from Australian Unions
1431
HamBoi69 on 18/04/2023 - 11:59 shop.australianunions.org.au (780 clicks)
Last edited 18/04/2023 - 11:59
Last edited 18/04/2023 - 11:59
Related Stores
closed Comments
You could order them and then stick them on the GPs merc (why do they always drive exactly a c class merc?) next time you visit?
C class merc is a poor man's merc.. need to get E class or above if you want any status
Yes, B and C class Mercs (and BMW) are available from car rentals these days as there is too much delivery delay for any Japanese and Korean cars and a lot of people don’t want an MG.
What sort of self respecting doctor would settle for the same as a rental after nearly a decade of study?
My doctor has started charging a gap fees now, he drives a Honda 2006 CIVIC.
Now he will be able to upgrade to the /r/AusFinance 2004 Camry
Just get glad you have access to doctors.
Yep, can always lower the bar. Don't strive for the Australia we used to have.
Do token things like avatars showing support.
The gap exists because successive governments have failed to fund cost effective GP led healthcare (a standard consult currently ~$39 adjusted for inflation should be ~$85) The Medicare subsidy/rebate is OUR tax dollars and for ~10 years the Government has not increased it with inflation/CPI.
If we want cost effective usage of our tax dollars and keep one of the best things about our healthcare system we need to make as much noise as possible by writing to our local members of parliament and the health minister [email protected]
does the levy need to increase?
Tbh, no. It's always been a percentage of income, and if there is wage wise over the last 10 years, and the population has grown in line with demand for GPs, why should the standard consult cost of $39 stay the same for the last 10 years??
No, the federal budget does not have buckets of funding earmarked for specific purposes (in fact it is unconstitutional to do so).
The 'Medicare Levy' is just an additional tax with a label, they could have instead called it the 'road levy' and it would have the exact same effect - more tax dollars in the consolidated revenue fund. The is no direct link between the Medicare levy and healthcare funding.
The reason Medicare is underfunded is because it was a political decision to do so, there is no limit or lack of funding driving it.
In the same way, doubling the Medicare levy will also have no effect except to increase tax dollars that the government can spend wherever it chooses.
@greatlamp: there's always an opportunity cost though and the books should balance. if Medicare funding is increased, what can they cut?
@ltwo: The budget can go into deficit.
What should be cut is irrelevant.
The discussion should be what is the return on investment. Preventative healthcare saves money, reducing hospitalisation, and keeping people in the workforce instead of being a drain on society. Some procedures do not provide good value and are already excluded from Medicare, such as cosmetic surgery. The cost/benefit analysis is already done, cutting funding for GP visits will cost society more in the long run.
@greatlamp: it can go into deficit but that debt needs to be paid eventually. like credit card bills.
@ltwo: They don't have to cut anything. The total levy paid has already increased in the last 10 years because the average wage has gone up. They should simply keep spending the revenue from the Medicare levy to where it belongs.
@bio: Um, while you are correct in the big picture, the levy doesn’t raise anywhere near the actual spend on health, or Medicare specifically. It might be a fifth of the actual cost if lucky.
@entropysbane: True, but the Medicare levy has never been supposed to cover the whole Medicare costs.
@entropysbane: I wonder what the increase in usage has been via immigration on people who don't/never pay tax. Ie grandparents or people who come back just for treatments/subsidised meds
@ltwo: IVF. And any payment that rewards people to have children. Parenthood is a privilege and personal choice.
@Protractor: Yeah instead of encouraging families let’s create a generation of singles and spend billions on alleviating the symptoms of singleness and mass migration.
@CommuterPolluter: agreed. lack of investment (both monetary and non) in parenthood kicks the can down the road. and by the time we get to the can again, it'll be a rock.
@CommuterPolluter: Children have become bling. Social media ornaments. People put eggs on layby.
If YOU want to have kids, go for it. But that's your choice. If you want IVF ditto. But user pays the journey to get there.
The pressures facing humanity and the planet are all human population driven.Why would you amplify it with breeding coupons and artificial insemination?@Protractor: Count yourself lucky we aren’t so mercenary when it comes to medical care, disability support and aged care. (We are only ALMOST this mercenary when it comes to disability support).
The gap exists because successive governments have failed to fund cost effective GP led healthcare
Governments don't fund anything, we as taxpayers do.
Health services cost money, you have the hcoice
If we want cost effective usage of our tax dollars and keep one of the best things about our healthcare system we need to make as much noise as possible by writing to our local members of parliament and the health minister
Please explain how 'making noise' makes it more 'cost effective'?
I used to work for the Health Dept, I know exactly how the funding models work, so don't dumb it down for me. I'd love to hear how much extra tax you'd like everyone to pay to fund your idea.Governments don't fund anything, we as taxpayers do.
Governments absolutely fund it. Once your tax is paid it is no longer yours to individually decide how it is spent. In the same way as if I gave you $50, I could not tell you what to do with it, as it is no longer mine.
You do have somewhat of a choice - and it comes in the form of voting the member who best represents your values at election time. If you are extra passionate, you could protest, or attempt to influence Parliament via the media etc, but imagine the chaos if every individual got the opportunity to tell the government exactly how to spend the tiny amount of tax they have paid proportionate to the value of the federal budget.
Governments absolutely fund it.
When someone steals your money to buy hookers and coke he is not spending his money, he is spending yours…
and it comes in the form of voting the member who best represents your values at election time.
Sure, but you said that writing to your MP and Health Minister will make things more 'cost effective'. I'm wondering how you think this could happen?
Healthcare in Australia is extremely convoluted and complex and despite being heavily susbidised by the taxpayer now, this cannot continue without very large tax increases. The increasing cost of health services, the aging population and the ratio of tax contributors to beneficiaries all combine to make medicare a disaster waiting to happen.
I can't recall the exact numbers so take these with a grain of salt, but when the welfare state was created, the worker to welfare ratio was something like 9:1. ie 9 taxpayers for every person receiving welfare. So in that environment it is easily sustainable.
Over the last few decades that has reduced down to about 4 or 5:1 as welfare increases, and forecasting has put into down to 2:1 in the near future. What exactly will you tell your MP to change the fact that a system designed to garnish 1/9th of an average tax receipt will now require 1/2, that will make it more 'cost effective'?Welfare sounds nice on the surface, but at some point you run out of other people's money.
@1st-Amendment: There is no taxpayer/no Australian who hasn't partaken of and benefitted by that "welfare state" - from birth onwards if you were born here. Businesses are also huge recipients of "welfare" from the masses, directly and indirectly through infrastructure, incentives, tax concessions etc. That taxpayer/welfare ratio you refer to is very unlikely to have included any of that so is essentially garbage.
Ever wondered why Scandinavian countries regularly feature in the happiest nations surveys and best health systems? Feel free to nominate a health system which isn't supported by taxes and/or "other people's money. That's how well-functioning, free societies work. Pooling resources for the greater good seems a far better option than the law of the jungle. How far do you reckon your personal wealth would go in creating infrastructure, maintaining legal and policing systems, providing education, food, transport, recreation etc?
is very unlikely to have
Well that's what you reckon so it must be true!
Now that I've Iooked it up, my 50% was actually too conservative, the real number is now closer to 80%: https://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-eight-out-of-10-tax…
Income Tax revenue $180B, Welfare spend $150B which is about 80% and it increases every year. When it reaches 100% how do you intend on paying for it all? What about when it's $120%? Please show your working.
Ever wondered why Scandinavian countries regularly feature in the happiest nations surveys and best health systems?
Is it all the white people? you better be careful you'll get cancelled for saying such things…
seems a far better option than
But no-one said that, so quit burning your own strawman… I already said that welfare can work when you can afford it, my point which you missed is what do you do when you can no longer afford all the programs you've created?
Feel free to show your working.
@1st-Amendment: Well, did the numbers include business and other welfare (education, health, infrastructure…) or not? Simple question, and there's an equally simple answer. The Conversation numbers didn't because they weren't discussing the topic of welfare generally, but were fact checking budget allocations in traditional lumps. Works for lazy people no doubt but if you dig deeper you'll find all sorts of welfare in other buckets not labelled "WELFARE". Almost invariably right wingers refuse to acknowledge that welfare exists across the spectrum, just like fossil fuel companies don't like to acknowledge their billions of dollars in subsidies since establishment. Finger pointing is much easier.
Speaking of straw men. Did you pluck that white man reference from your @rse or was it sitting there in your memory waiting to be unleashed? I can't be sure but somehow I doubt scandinavian skin colour has much to do with their happiness.
Works for lazy people no doubt but if you dig deeper you'll find all sorts of welfare in other buckets not labelled "WELFARE"
So you're actually saying that the cost of welfare is even higher than I said? You're making my case for me but then arguing against it?
Think about this just a little bit before replying…
Almost invariably right wingers refuse to acknowledge…
Oh I see you've switched from asking question to telling me what I'm thinking. This is usually what happens when you start running out of ideas, so it's very telling.
Back to my original point which you keep avoiding. When the cost of welfare schemes exceed the tax revenue, what is your plan?
@1st-Amendment: Yes the cost of welfare is obviously FAR higher than your limited understanding. I thought about it - took a millisecond - and it's also obvious that you have no comprehension of why welfare is good in most cases. I'll leave you to work out why that might be - it doesn't require any particular economic expertise but it does require a VERY basic knowledge of how democratic capitalist nations operate and the nexus between order and poverty/inequity.
When the cost of welfare schemes exceed the tax revenue, what is your plan?
I didn't avoid anything, my initial response was to your obvious ignorance of the extent of "welfare" in govt budgets. Your loaded question is purely hypothetical, but you should be able to work out the options surely?ALL welfare (and debt for that matter) - including business welfare - has costs and benefits, although you appear to understand just one side of that coin and even then don't appreciate the social implications. Govts decide affordability on many bases, including political philosophy. For example is childcare welfare good for the economy, employment, child development, and national wellbeing in general or is it simply a drain on future budgets like Howard's structural tax concessions were ($100B in lost gas revenues alone there)? IF welfare costs exceeded revenue over even one fy, let alone decades- neither scenario is even vaguely likely - then at least four alternatives exist. 1. Raise more revenue (and there are many options for doing that)/ improve productivity. 2, Reduce non-essential welfare spending. 3. Borrow to tide the country over until better times (not necessarily a bad strategy during times of very low interest rates). 4. Use funds specifically set aside for times of hardship - ever heard of the Future Fund? Govts typically rely on 1,2,3 in various combinations.
Btw I'm not "telling you what you're thinking", I'm making a very obvious link between your comments on many topics on this website and your narrow minded "politics".
of why welfare is good in most cases.
Which is not the topic. This why you have tied yourself in knots trying to respond because you didn't read the question.
Take a breath and go back and read the topic being discussed. If welfare costs more than revenue, what exactly are you writing to your MP to make that more 'cost effective'?
your narrow minded "politics".
You mean I questioned your public opinion in a public forum and you got upset about it? If you ideas cannot withstand basic scrutiny then your ideas are probably need to change.
IF welfare costs exceeded revenue over even one fy, let alone decades- neither scenario is even vaguely likely
It has already happened, this is why debt is increasing.
then at least four alternatives exist
Raise more revenue
And the suggestion given is to raise taxes which I countered already. Raising taxes doesn't always raise revenue, in a lot of cases it reduces it.
Reduce non-essential welfare spending
Which is one my points, so you agree now?
Borrow
Sure but this is not limitless, which also my point. What do you do when you max out the credit card? What then?
Use funds specifically set aside for times of hardship - ever heard of the Future Fund?
Yes and that is not what it is for. The Future Fund is specifically to carry the liability of the Superannuation commitments made by previous governments that they couldn't afford. So when you said "neither scenario is even vaguely likely " the Future Fund is proof of it.So to summarise. If you reach the peak of the Laffer curve where raising taxes no longer increases revenue, and can no longer borrow your way out of trouble because you've already borrowed too much, and you have no reserve funds left, according to your 4 points provided above, the only option left is to cut some welfare programs (option 2)
So it looks like we landed in the same place. Well done, I'm proud of you.
@1st-Amendment: Missed this puerile diatribe. Your ignorance is A+++ class, especially in regard to what annual budgets are and what they mean economically for this country. Understandable given the LNP bs about the need to have surpluses and the patently false alarm about "budget emergency" they threw out there not long ago for naive and economically ignorant listeners. Odd that they then took Australia on a path of record debt even before the pandemic don't you think?
Why would writing to your local member of the Minister help? A lower high school student would know the answer to that, even those who don't understand how politics works. Since you can't work it out for yourself I suggest - yet again - that you search and read.
IF welfare costs exceeded revenue over even one fy, let alone decades- neither scenario is even vaguely likely
"It has already happened, this is why debt is increasing."
Really, which year(s)? Even during peak pandemic spending "welfare" (as you know) it only constituted $220B out of the total budget of $523B (actual figs). It usually sits around 35% of budget, and ~9% of GDP. You can find all the detail and summaries here IF you're interested: https://archive.budget.gov.au/2020-21/index.htm
Your knowledge of the economics of debt, budgets, taxes, revenues, assets and expenditures is obviously naive and simplistic in the extreme. Govt and national debt increases and decreases for many reasons, irrespective of single or consecutive govt budgets. Howard and Costello left future Australia govts with structural debt which has affected revenues significantly long after their govt's demise. Just one example previously mentioned. They also sold off commonwealth assets, including gold reserves at rock bottom prices, to temporarily create budget surpluses and redistribute common wealth to the already wealthy. Great outcomes for current and future generations.
The Laffer Curve/tax revenue theory has many limitations and is not even defined for progressive taxation systems. That you think Australia is or will approach the top of the bell curve is not supported by any evidence or credible commentary I have come across so why even reference it?
Sorry to disabuse you of your fantasy but we aren't on the same planet let alone in the "same place". If we were I'd have to seriously consider emigrating.
Odd that they then took Australia on a path of record debt even before the pandemic don't you think?
Once again you're rambling off topic…
Since you can't work it out for yourself I suggest - yet again - that you search and read.
We already covered this: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
Really, which year
Well you gave us an example with the Future Fund despite not knowing what it was for. Peter Costello recognised that Defined Benefits commitments would exceed the available revenue once all those tens of thousands of public servants retired, hence why he was forced to create it.
total budget
Yeah you confused income tax revenue, the original topic, with total budget and GDP… oopsy…
You do realise that the government can't spend the entire nation's GDP on welfare programs right? Nor the entire budget since you know we need to pay for other things too. You know that right? Because your comments make it sound like you don't know that…Your knowledge of…
Wibble wibble meaningless childish behaviour… When you're out of ideas, Ad hominem is a sure sign that you're flopping about on the floor looking for a a way out…
Or how you confused revenue vs expenditure in your first reply with "happiness in Scadanavian countries"
Tell us how you confused revenue vs expenditure in your second reply with "welfare exists across the spectrum"
Or how you brought up the Future Fund in your third reply without knowing what it is. "Use funds specifically set aside for times of hardship - ever heard of the Future Fund"
Or now how you're confusing budget and GDP with Tax Revenue?"$220B out of the total budget of $523B"But sure, you keep telling yourself that your right. That's the best way to know for sure lol…
Howard and Costello
more emotional off-topic rambling…
You are the standard example of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
The irony is that you already answered my question without knowing it. Thanks for the laughs.
.
@1st-Amendment: "wibble wibble, oopsy…". Is primary school detention out for the evening or did you finally crack the parent lock?
Just to further correct your obvious ignorance on elementary economic matters……
The Future Fund's focus has changed since you last looked. Time you caught up with not just what its purpose is, but what federal budgets are and aren't, what deficits are and what they involve, their relatively minor importance in times of growth/stable economic conditions, and probably most importantly what the cost of welfare (as you know it and the budget treats it) actually is as a proportion of expenditure and total annual revenues. That information is freely available to everyone, even you.
To disabuse you of your fantasies yet again - I didn't confuse anything, I gave you official govt numbers from the ACTUAL, ie finalised, budget year 2020-21, something you'd know if you bothered to follow the link and READ.
The simple fact is that despite your hilarious comment to the contrary - it's worth highlighting yet again:
"It [welfare costs exceeding revenue] has already happened, this is why debt is increasing."
welfare costs have never and are never likely to consume any federal budget, or exceed revenues, because we have economically literate commentators, responsible Treasurers and public servant assistants, practical political advisors, and a mostly realistic voting public.I'm pleased you found your D-K link. No doubt you were introduced to the concept during your forays into many topics you clearly know very little about. As the saying goes a little knowledge can be dangerous in the wrong hands - eg yours. There's nothing to fear about knowledge although in your case it might take some effort to overcome your addiction to ignorance. Heck, if you can find a lacky to do your research you might even learn why Australia's place at the top of your wealthiest nations list is seen as a significant risk by some reputable commentators. As a sage once said - a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.
The Future Fund's focus has changed since you last looked
And now tell us how that is relevant to the discussion which is why it was setup in the first place? Especially in context of the topic welfare costs exceeding available revenue. Uh-oh cognitive dissonance in 3, 2, 1…
Or maybe tell us about happiness in Sweden or something equally irrelevant. Why read the actual question when you can ramble on about something else lol…
I didn't confuse anything, I gave you official govt numbers from the ACTUAL…
Oh dear… and I already pointed this out to you. You confused ACTUAL GDP and ACTUAL budget expenditure with ACTUAL income tax revenue. I read it, I found your mistake, I pointed it out to you, but here you are making the exact same mistake all over again. It's gone from hilarious to embarrassing now…
responsible Treasurers
Like Peter Costello with Future Fund lol…. fish in a barrel…pew! pew!
I'm pleased you..
Wibble wibble… When you run out of ideas do whatever is you think that is lol….
You had 5 goes at this and you're still flopping around on the floor while claiming victory.
I'm going to have to leave you to flop around on your own now because I can only dumb it down so much and you're still so obviously confused as to what the discussion is…
frozen by labor.
interesting as if it was the libs you would've posted that.
The government funds GP's perfectly adequately, they don't need to boost any funding for them what so ever.
GP's who operate in a full time capacity privately and bulk-bill 100% of their patients still earn in excess of $250K a year AFTER all associated costs and expenses of running the business. Those who have been doing that in a practice they run are earning well over $400K within a couple of years. GP's who work publicly and bulk-bill 100% of patients area also earning well in excess of $200K AFTER all associated professional costs.
To think the tax payers need to be subsidizing playboy lifestyles for the wannabe rich and famous, who already earn well more than triple the median income, is crazy.
because successive governments
voting harder hasn't changed anything then,
but is it the only 'tool' that we have?
The gap exists because successive governments have failed to fund cost effective GP ……………..
Or Remove the stranglehold that the AMA (Doctors UNION) have on Medicare and allow nurses and other suitably trained staff to handle non important things and reduce the demand for GPs.
There are a hundred ways to deliver good medical care, GPs are not the only one be all and end all.
I’d much rather pay a bit and get good health care instead of the 30 second appointments bulk billing doctors seem to always do to try and see as many patients as possible to make up the dollars that way.
Taxes is paying a bit, we should just be getting better health care.
The appropriate amount of tax dollars should be allocated to doctors so that they can make enough money without machine gunning through as many patients as fast as possible
Wonder if people would give up some of all the other things that taxes fund in order to get better healthcare?
Cutting the ABC back to one single TV station and selling off Triple J could be one source.
But I’m guessing that wouldn’t be too popular.
@PainToad: I'm sure they'd be happy to go without the nuclear subaqueous vehicles governments love so much, maybe that FTTN NBN rollout too
@SpainKing: Ah yes the old, "let's just not have a military and we'll be able to spend heaps on other things" trope.
Yes the military is expensive and yes we hope it all just sits there, doesn't get deployed and rots away until it's eventually replaced with even more expensive gear. However it's absolutely necessary in the world we live in.
Would you genuinely be comfortable if Australia just abandoned it's military, and of course asked America to do the same thing, because we couldn't be so selfish as to just mooch of their military while their people are suffering with poor healthcare hey.
Then it's just up to you to go to the CCP and say please sir, don't bully us into accepting the world on your terms and certainly don't even try and take our country from us… Of course not.
You just want to whinge about military spending.
@Binchicken22: Just because we don't have a bunch of submarines decades from now doesn't mean we don't have a military or that I think having one is a bad thing. $250 billion is a lot of money and to act as if it couldn't have been used more effectively seems disingenuous
No I wouldn't be comfortable if we or our allies all decided to abolish our militaries, that wasn't my proposal though. I wouldn't be against Australia having a system where you do national service out of school, learning how to defend the country in times of war and also helping the community as other countries have
I don't have a crystal ball that tells me about future wars and the best bargains, but I don't know if China wants to start a big thing when they're already hesitant with regards to Taiwan. That already threatens a war with the US and invading Australia would just about guarantee it (not to mention we have a large amount of Chinese immigrants/students, provide them with lots of resources for production and are much further away than many nearby countries)
The LNP were in power for a decade and seriously hindered our country economically through a variety of means. I could whinge on a number of them but the submarines are most present in peoples' minds. I also mentioned the NBN rollout which was botched to consolidate the fact that the government's spending isn't always optimal (as I believe is the case with the submarines)
@SpainKing: The subs have definitely been a bit of a shit show I'll say that, the cancelled contract that cost us $500m, the seemingly excessive lead time to build these subs that are already in service with other nations etc, however I'd don't think "going without" them is an option.
As for the NBN, I don't even know where to start, yeah it appears the FTTN approach backfired and ended up potentially costing more than the "fibre everywhere" approach would have to begin with, I guess we'll never know for sure, but it seems that way.
The big problem with the NBN is that it seems like it will never really be self sustaining, it's not even complete and it's already losing substantial market share to 5g tech and losing more each year. It's going to be a shame to have all this new fibre everywhere and it being vastly underutilized. It's going to have to just be a 40+ billion $ write-off and just be done with it I think.
@Binchicken22: We agree and disagree in certain aspects and that's what good discussion's about. Thank you for presenting your side of the argument and enjoy your Tuesday
@Binchicken22: FTTP and 5G is probably the mix that was required - not that FTTN, FTTB and to some extent HFC crap.
The LNP were in power for a decade and seriously hindered our country economically through a variety of means. I could whinge on a number of them…
But could you and actually not sound ignorant? Because if we use actual data, rather then some guy's opinion, Australia is now the wealthiest nation on earth per capita: https://www.primecapital.com/australians-the-richest-in-the-…
Imagine being so entitled that you live in the wealthiest nation but think you are hard done by… this truly is the age of entitlement…@1st-Amendment: What a joke, per capita might mean something if there was equal wealth distribution. Your cherry picked averaging does nothing when 10% of households have 46% of the wealth. Tell me more about how Gina Reinhardt's profits are soaring while she plans to cut her employees wages.
per capita might mean something if there was equal wealth distribution
It means something when you are using the same metric to compare.
Tell me more about how Gina Reinhardt's profits are soaring while she plans to cut her employees wages.
If you think Gina Reinhardt's onto a good thing, you should buy shares and share in the profits. Or do you only like to complain about things and not do anything about it?
@1st-Amendment: Yeah she's really on to a good thing. Wanna be the most profitable business in Australia? Just wait for your dad to buy up all the land and die. She really adds a lot of value to the dirt out of a hole that we export to other countries and you should invest your life savings into enriching her with your capital.
you should invest your life savings into enriching her
So you have no idea how shares work? Fits the bill…
@1st-Amendment: Actually I do. Hancock prospecting is a private company and you can't just buy the shares like a pack of biccies. Your snide comments and constant link posting shows how empty your head is.
How about you actually gain some knowledge instead of Google cherry picking your sources to fit your narrative and learn to be a better troll.
@1st-Amendment: That wealth is largely on the back of massively overpriced property, which is not liquid for many/most people. Plenty of economic commentary suggests that is unsustainable and a possible danger to the economy. The LNP is not directly responsible for that although they, like every govt in the last 3 decades, contributed via significant immigration - which the country has benefitted from.
Plenty of economic commentary suggests that…
'economic commentary' has as much value as this comments section possibly less as some people in here actually are right about some things some of the time
The fact is that we are at the top thanks to both Labor and Liberal parties which despite the standard finger pointing have both been rather steady governors of the country.@1st-Amendment: I doubt you've read any of that commentary, which is based on historical economic data and experience across global economies. Those data and experiences may or may not be repeated here but the commentary has far more value than you shutting your eyes and crossing your fingers.
I doubt you've read any of that commentary
Well how could I possibly do that if you don't post anything? Just saying stuff doesn't make it true. That may work in your household, but you're going to need to try a bit harder out here..
the commentary has far more value than you shutting your eyes and crossing your fingers
Which commentary specifically? Or is this one of those hand-wavy, trust me I'm right bro type things? Show me some 'economic commentary' and the track record it has then we'll judge it on its merits rather than your say so…
@1st-Amendment: Understand your need to be spoonfed - your record of comments on Ozbargain is a testament to that - but given you've posted about comparative national wealth I'd hoped you might have at least a very basic grasp of what that rating was based on and what the implications were. Google and read.
Which commentary? The commentary I referred to initially. Here's a bread crumb trail to help out. You posted a link about national wealth trying to prove a point without having even a fundamental understanding of its significance or its limitations. Nothing new there. If you opened your other (left) eye you'd be able to find many opinions on the economics relating to that "most wealthy" nation claim. Did I say google and read already?
Which commentary? The commentary I referred to initially
So you can't provided a single citation? Got it.
@1st-Amendment: That sort of puerile reply goes down well in rw circles does it?
I can provide far more references than your intellect could handle but since you're presumably out of nappies, I'm not your lackey, you have internet access (assuming it's not parent blocked), and you have acquaintances who could help you with basic searching, it's up to you to educate yourself - especially if you're intent on posting links you don't understand. The major impediments you face would appear to be that you don't like to learn and you're afraid that the quaint world of rw spoonfed beliefs you embrace might come tumbling down.
I can provide far more references…
Yet you don't.
Watch this and learn: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36589
One day you'll grow up and be able to talk to the adults…
@1st-Amendment: And yet I don't. Congratulations for getting something right on this thread.
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/13644318/redir
Rote wasn't a bad way to learn during primary school so I suggest you keep reading this ^ redirection link until it dawns on you why you need to learn to search and read for yourself.
Here's another clue to why that's important. Any links someone provides could be highly biased and/or wildly inaccurate. Think lies by omission, taking things out of context, cherry picking, pseudo-science and outright invention. All common traits of particular rw/neocon demographics in particular.
Based on your wildly ignorant prognostications on climate change, the pandemic, and latterly global wealth tables, you would undoubtedly have come across many such links - even if you weren't aware of their lack of integrity because of your naivety and/or ignorance. The latter wasn't misleading though, you simply didn't understand what it was based on and hence why it was a false indicator of both national wealth AND govt economic performance.
Which is a nice segue back to the commentaries you're unaware of. If you can't phone a friend would you like to try a 50/50?
@1st-Amendment: I like to think I could
The article you linked said that the median income (not per capita, where your linked article says Australia is 4th) is the highest. It attributed the brunt of the rise to the stock market and property values
It continues to say that property values are falling. When Australia has a housing crisis it also feels like an unethical way to make money
Living in the wealthiest nation doesn't make you wealthy by default. It also doesn't make those that were in power the smartest/best. The LNP failed miserably when COVID came whereas the ALP set the national standard for how to handle a crisis like the GFC when they were last in power. Australia is "the lucky country" not because the LNP are such effective economic managers but because it's hard to not prosper when the land you live on is made of minerals the rest of the world wants (for a similar example look at Saudi Arabia's oil)
If you think that rorts, cancelled contract fees, pork barreling, jobkeeper, corruption, botched NBN, selling all the water in the Murray Darling, AUKUS etc. were good I'd like to see what the ALP has done in your eyes to make them bad
Living in the wealthiest nation doesn't make you wealthy by default.
Show me anyone that said that? You said the LNP has hindered Australia economically yet we are the wealthiest nation on earth. How is that a hindrance?
Tell me, would you prefer to live in a wealthy country or a poor one? Which is better?
The LNP failed miserably when COVID came
How specifically? Labor tended to prefer stricter lockdowns which we now know were created more overall damage both the health and the economy. What metric are you using here?
were good I'd like to see what the ALP has done in your eyes to make them bad
Oh dear, did you actually read anything I wrote?
You said the LNP has hindered Australia economically yet we are the wealthiest nation on earth. How is that a hindrance?
The hindrance is not being the wealthiest nation on Earth. It's being led by the LNP who are some of the worst economic managers out of all the continents. If they hadn't had free reign for over a decade Australians might actually be able to prosper outside of the middle and upper class. And it all could've been done without raping the country we share
I like to live in a wealthy country where those in power care about their citizens and the budget, not their own pockets
How specifically? Labor tended to prefer stricter lockdowns which we now know were created more overall damage both the health and the economy. What metric are you using here?
The metrics I'm using are Jobkeeper, the cruise ship, the bushfires, ICAC etc
Oh dear, did you actually read anything I wrote?
Unfortunately, yes. All of it. It seems worthless, needlessly contradictory/antagonistic and makes no good points as to why Labour are worse than the Liberals
@PainToad: shame we can't all get along because submarines are expensive, especially those bought under a trilateral pact…
@PainToad: That's a weird argument. I wonder how people would answer the question if it's asked backwards: "Do you want us to provide you worse healthcare to fund one more ABC TV station".
That's a weird argument.
Why’s it weird? Unless we increase taxes even further, there’s a limited amount of money. If you want to increase health care funding (a valid opinion), money must be taken from somewhere else. I’d personally rather see less money being spent on free entertainment like the ABC than cut pensions.
@PainToad: It's weird because it assumes (1) that there are only two available options; health and entertainment, and (2) that people are actually asked for their opinion.
that there are only two available options
Those were examples. Where do you suggest cuts should be made that doesn’t involve increasing the tax people pay like donkcat has suggested.
There’s no right or wrong answers.
@PainToad: It's not increasing taxes at all, it's just not giving the top wage earners a tax cut, that is quite a difference. Lets see, my suggestion saves us $25 billion a year. Your suggestion of cutting the ABC, lets say you cut it by 25%, well you save about $250 million a year, barely a drop in the ocean to the issues with health care.
Also it's a terrible idea to cut an essential service that is a public broadcaster in a country with our high levels of media ownership concentration.
Lets see, my suggestion saves us $25 billion a year.
Nope. Because your only looking at the cost, not the value.
If a certain expenditure saves you X, then the case can easily be made that it's worth spending a fraction of X to save X. It's the exact same reason why you have insurance. eg Home insurance costs more than going to see a movie, but which one has the biggest potential consequence if you don't do it?@donkcat: Money is fungible. A quarter of a million dollars will build a school, or a regional hospital, or a flash new road every single year. Why it could pay for all the required regional obstetric services rather than expecting pregnant mums to go to the city.
I reckon any of those options would be better than a swag of stations run by the government funded broadcaster. One station will do.
@entropysbane: Zero would be better.
There is no need for government funded broadcasters in today's world with so many freely available sources of information.@donkcat: There are myriad options to cut back spending, or reallocate to something more useful.
Every spending program has its interest groups that would squeal like a bunch of pigs whose trough got taken away and no politician is prepared to do that anymore.This sub thread though was about whether an example of poor allocation was the number of ABC channels.
@entropysbane: It's a redundant conversation without knowing what each of these extra channels costs
It's weird because it assumes (1) that there are only two available options;
That's not weird at all. Every dollar can only be spent on one thing, so as a thought exercise which would you prefer? More Triple J, or more doctors and nurses? Or something else?
@1st-Amendment: More doctors and nurses, same Triple J, less tax cuts for the rich and less nuclear submarines.
More doctors and nurses, same Triple J, less tax cuts for the rich and less nuclear submarines.
So the business owners hire less staff which increases unemployment which pushes more resourcing offshore and creates less overall tax revenue, and the Chinese annex Australia. This is your awesome plan? Lidia Thorpe is that you?
@1st-Amendment: That theory has been widely debunked and is only used by the apologists for the ultra-rich these days. Tax cuts work, but only when they are applied to everyone, and they work even better if they are towards low income earners:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-REB-32046
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/701424
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/09_effe…
That theory has been widely debunked
What theory? I didn't postulate any theory?
Rather than vomit up a bunch of random links without making any sort of argument, how about you take a breath and think about what you want to say before hitting the send button?@1st-Amendment: Your theory:
So the business owners hire less staff which increases unemployment which pushes more resourcing offshore and creates less overall tax revenue, and the Chinese annex Australia.
I thought you are a grown-up person who can handle a civil discussion but obviously you can't.
@bio: Lol. One look at his "contributions" on climate change, the pandemic and pretty much any economic discussion would have taught you otherwise. Can be quite entertaining watching him chipping away at the thin ice he's built if you can ignore the rw indoctrination and other arbitrary bs.
I thought you are a grown-up person who can handle a civil discussion but obviously you can't.
You are the one who is giving up on the discussion. That is quite obvious to all.
How about scrapping the stage 3 tax cuts for a start
How do you incorrectly think that will that help? Do you know what the Laffer curve is? Look it up so you don't sound like the typical economically illiterate Lefty…
@1st-Amendment: Laffer curve has nothing to do with stage 3 tax cuts, which only applies to high income earners. It reduces the average tax collected, but it won't change the tax paid by the people from lower brackets.
To be clear, my income is over $180K, so those cuts are actually good for me, but not for the Australian people.
@1st-Amendment: I know you're trying to sound clever and all here but you do understand it's the government's own figures that show that it will cost the economy $25 billion a year…..
do understand it's the government's own figures that show that it will cost the economy $25 billion a year
Yep which is why I used two words, cost and value. Now you've told us the cost twice, see if you can work out the other word…
I know you're trying to sound clever
By using two different words to describe two different things? And this is considered clever where you live?
@1st-Amendment: Then wise one you can see how diverting the $25 billion cost into the health system actually creates value, not that difficult is it.
Then wise one you can see how diverting the $25 billion cost into the health system actually creates value
Well it creates negative value if that diversion costs you your national sovereignty.
So the question the becomes, how much is the appropriate amount to spend on protecting a $2 trillion dollar economy? $25B sound like a bargain to me.@1st-Amendment: You might want to brush up on your economic skills. A tax cut that has not yet been implemented cannot crash an economy if it was to be reversed. Can you actually point to the actual economic return to tax payers by giving largely the largest wage earners in Australia a tax cut?
Trickle down economics has been well debunked, it only exists on Neo-liberal talking points, it's just another debunked excuse to increase the ever growing wealth disparity between the rich and the poor.
@PainToad: I'd give up feeding the LNP trough for better health care.
And pork barrelling should become a federal ICAC criminal offence.
And scrap AUKUS. ( We need healthy yoof for cannon fodder,anyway.)
We should also either charge the US rent for their NT invasion.
I'd love it more if every GP around me didn't charge a gap…