As you may be aware, the Treasurer addressed tax reform during the National Press Club event on Wednesday. Labor made several commitments before the election, but the question remains—where will the funding come from? They are now considering tax reform. Although the Treasurer stated he is not currently inclined to raise the GST, it remains on the table as an option. Are we expecting to pay more tax in the near future?
Labor Open to New Ideas on Tax Reform
nned2say on 19/06/2025 - 12:37
Comments
Why is this rated down? It's statistically true
In 2022
5% of people were in the $180k + bracket
those 5% of people contributed 40.1% of the net tax revenueIf you want to work hard you pay more tax
If you want to take it easy you pay less taxAnd yes - people who earn more work harder it's simple maths - your remuneration is a reflection of your stress, sacrifice, risk that you adopt in your role
https://www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/research-and-statistics/in-…
40.1% of the net tax revenue
So the people in the lower brackets combined with corporates and all consumers (GST) only contributed 59.9% of net tax revenues?
No, the figure has been misrepresented. It is not 40.1% of the entire country's tax revenue, it is just income tax. Income tax only accounts for 39% of Australian tax revenue or 48% depending which source used. It's hard to say exactly how much those individuals contribute though because they will also be paying many of the other tax sources like company tax, GST, etc.
@donga100: Its not misrepresented.
Those are the percentages paid out of all income tax received.
You have just expanded the categories now and said that all these other taxes are paid but that is not what was presented in the ATO charts.
It is specifically income tax.
Also
Companies don't pay GST - they offset any GST received with GST expended
Individuals like us pay GST fully and we don't get any offset
So I don't even get the point you are trying to make, it just means things are much worse
https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/gst-exci…
@donga100: GST is 10% on all goods purchased.. which is in addition to everything else the government takes.
Let's see what Labor does.I personally look forward to living in housing commission in the future on the tax payers dime.
(why work if i can still enjoy a good life and smoke meth and get a handout and a roof over my head, while the idiots of society slave away for me to bludge - increase taxes, I guarantee more will feel the same.)
If you take the ATO statistics as they are presented then yes that is correct. But not GST, that is a separate tax on all of society. But just remember, individuals pay GST, not corporations/businesses. Only individuals so if you brought it into this discussion it just makes the percentage worse for people and better for corporations.
To clear up my meaning I should have said….
…combined with corporates (paying company tax) and all human consumers (paying GST)…
We could fix that by adopting a flat tax system rather than progressive.
25 percent from 1st cent to last for everyone.
No need to readjust brackets every few years, no need to worry about if working just a tad harder is worth it or not.
people who earn more work harder
yeah, for sure, privilege, inherited wealth, luck, fraud and exploitation of others have nothing to do with it.
Work harder! enrolled nurses, trolley pushers, labourers, teachers aides, cleaners, uber drivers, aged care and childcare workers - and you too can earn more.
Apply a bit of common sense to your comment. Role for role a harder working person will have better pay outcomes. Upskilling, working smart, hard and being able to network would more than likely let those trolley pushers, uber drivers etc expand into better paying fields.
"And yes - people who earn more work harder it's simple maths - your remuneration is a reflection of your stress, sacrifice, risk that you adopt in your role"
Not really true, IPA style rhetoric. And I'm almost at that 180k p.a mark. (Maritime)
“ And yes - people who earn more work harder it's simple maths - your remuneration is a reflection of your stress, sacrifice, risk that you adopt in your role”
Joe Hockey, is that you?
The government earns enough off the back of the tax payers of Australia.
Key items that should be on the agenda:
CUT GOVERNMENT WASTE (the tax payer paying $5K for something that costs $400 anywhere else in the country by individuals and businesses is an absolute joke - the government should NOT be paying to prop up unprofitable businesses that simply want to price gouge the tax payer - government employees are complicit - a prime example - the police Breathalyser, or how about the humble speeding/red light traffic camera - 2 million for most of them (its literally a camera with a sensor - sure, get a good one… but it doesnt cost above 1 million - but to the tax payer (for you and me it does).
Zero DEFICIT - the future generations should not be funding for the failures of our political leaders - we should say for each $10 million the government goes into deficit (state or federal), State and Federal politicians lose $10K from their pay packets (watch how quickly they pull their fingers out and how quickly budgets go into surplus magically)
CUT IMMIGRATION - I'm not saying immigrants are a problem at all. But the "housing crisis" is one of the government's own making. We should be focusing on increasing our housing supply, not diminishing it. If the government only allowed trades or those that got apprenticeships here from other nations we'd have no housing shortage.
BUILDING SUPPLY - We have the 5th largest land mass of any country in the world, we DO NOT need everything in 1x location. Spread out! - Increase immigration of trades, provide bridging courses, free up crown land for housing opportunities.
DECREASE CORRUPTION at all levels of government (Cronyism, nepotism, kickbacks, quid pro quo's, corruption at all levels - its ridiculous) - the government shouldnt be imposing its will
FIX NDIS - the cost blowouts are disgusting - this should be fixed as a matter of priority.
INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY (increase productivity, cut red tape and in turn reducing government headcount - more government workers should be fearful of job losses and should actually do work (being there and talking about work is not doing it), there should be a complete uplift in productivity - I've worked with over 1000 businesses and 20 different state (multiple states), federal and local governments over my career, the waste is egregious and disgusting - if you physically saw how lazy, entitled and ineffective 99.9% of government workers are, you'd be storming Canberra. You would have never seen more people in your life that are great at talking about work and how it should be performed (without ever actually doing it) and your tax dollars are paying for that privilege - cut the waste - the government's purpose is not to create careers off the tax payers back and in turn leads to career incompetence.
There's much more but the above should be a start.
These are all solutions which address the core problem and would turn Australia into a super power. But you are expecting politicians to do something other than line their own pockets and look for ways to fulfill their masters (mining, pharmoceuticals, other corrupt business) desires. Look out outgoing COVID czar mark McGowan. Making millions as a "mining consultant". Pretty much just kickbacks for all his sucking.
yeah, he's on multiple boards of multiple companies now (including BHP).
WA state government is ridiculously corrupt.
@alexdagr8: His treasurer did all right thank you very much when he snatched it. There should be a 6 month gap, where they can't be employed by big corporations after leaving govt ( for front benchers and higher).The line between govt and industry is dodgy there for sure. I recall King McGowan even overtly castrated their EPA for daring to do their job, re the large impacts of massive resource /energy projects. It's normal across Australia now. NT makes WA look tame.
- This is always done. Don't become DOGE.
- I'm down with this.
- We need immigration to do the jobs that we can't fill.
- Agreed.
- There is very little corruption in government. Policies are in place already to counter all of the things you mentioned. However, maintaining and improving the current level of vigilance is extremely important.
- 100%
You want to focus on preventing corruption but also reduce red tape? Most of the red tape in government is around controls to prevent and manage potential corruption. You can't have it both ways.
Tax mining appropriately.
- Its not - this isnt DOGE.
- you havent seen it - just because a policy is in place doesnt mean its adhered to.
- Yes you can have it both ways - its called competence - something the government severely lacks in the public service.
- Its the biggest form of taxation in the country for any private business (stats back this up) - what you should be looking at is taxing oil and gas companies appropriately and having adequate sovereign reserves.
largely agree.. but as always - the devil is in the detail.
Government 'waste' - what people define as waste varies wildly.. and may in fact be someone else's livelihood (submarine engineers vs. well-being assessor vs. traffic management officers etc.)
'DEFICIT' - the smartest people you know don't go in politics for a variety of reasons - low pay is probably the smallest reason, but cutting politicians' pay -> paying peanuts -> get monkeys.
I'm actually all for this, but the majority of their benefits are in fact from oil companies etc. - Fix that, then we can start paying them more.Immigration - we're actually doing quite well at getting the 'cream of the crop' with how difficult we've made it for them.
So much so, that very few of them take up the trades needed to build more houses -> labor becomes more expensive, developers hang on to their cash & landSupply - again agree, but similar issue. Pick your favorite city, chances are your workplace will be within 20km of the CBD. Nobody wants to commute over an hour back and forth -> opposite of 'spread out' happens in feedback loop and we get exactly what we have - expensive clusters. This is the reason developers will not build in the middle of nowhere without significant govnmnt incentives.. and then you just end up with empty houses that no one wants.
Corruption - similar issues. All of what you've described is your subjective judgement of behaviors. Without it being explicitly outlawed, anything goes in the political sphere, and 'imposing your will' is literally why you would want to go into politics.
NDIS - we need it, cost blowouts are disgusting in any government initiative. Just hold people accountable.
Productivity - agree.. but this is a cultural problem. Very few of them want to be lazy - but the amount of times their initiatives get trampled, hard work overlook for the loudest person in the room… it's no wonder you'd stop trying
we're actually doing quite well at getting the 'cream of the crop' with how difficult we've made it for them
I disagree. What I've seen in engineering lately is we are often just taking in incompetent engineers from developing countries that are not skilled and less capable than a fresh Aust uni grad. Only thing they are great at is driving down salaries.
Only thing they are great at is driving down salaries.
which is the core reason for “skilled immigration” but… shhhh.
@stewy: I know someone with a PHD in electrical engineering who needed help assembling flat pack furniture from ikea.
@Muppet Detector: not surprised..
PHD = extremely qualified in an extremely narrow field
i.e. can't wire a house but breaking new horizons in bleeding edge tech, 3nm quantum wafers etc.
should factor in hours worked.
Why?
The dude working 20 hours per week likely elected to go part time for work life balance. The same dude could elect to work full time and earn $200k but pay a lot more taxes.
The dude working 60 hours per week is doing it all wrong. That's just crazy.
You do know that junior roles exist right? Would be plenty of people around doing those kind of hours on that money
Either way it's insane. 10 hours per day for 6 days a week just to brown nose the boss and hope to get somewhere. Stuff that bullshit for $30 equivalent per hour.
@MS Paint: Exactly why they should pay less tax. Some people work multiple low-paying jobs just to stay afloat with no brown-nosing.
your employment contract would specify 38 hours per week, plus reasonable additional hours (meaning 1 or 2, equating to 40 hours per week) (unless you're on shift work/ hourly wages)
working more than that and you're either:
-getting rorted (taken advantage of by your employer)
-trying for a promotion (which you probably wont get anyway - good luck!)
-incompetent and cant do you job in the specified hours
what about the people who have spent years studying and training
What about them?
if people get taxed by how many hours worked it doesn't account for the cost of obtaining the skill
@Hvrd: I don't understand your point.
I do not think tax on hours worked is a good thing.
I do know that some get paid to earn their qualifications/aquire their skills. (Where employer pays for your training and time spent training or at least pays for the cost of the course).
I do know that some don't get paid whilst getting their qualifications (such as uni degree - though a lot do get some access to Austudy type payments whilst they study)
I do know that some get paid a reduced wage to train and learn (aka apprenticeship)
But I don't get why the cost of obtaining the skill has anything to do with getting taxed by how many hours you work.
If it's not too much trouble, would you please see if you could explain that a bit further for me? I really want to understand this perspective.
@Muppet Detector: So a skilled worker works 1 hour and makes $100 and an unskilled worker works 2 hours and makes $100, they have both made the same money but the skilled worker will pay more tax meanwhile the skilled worker also has 50k in education debt and has done lots of unpaid work to get the skill
@Hvrd: If they are taxed on hours worked then the guy who works two hours gets taxed more than the guy who works one hour, doesn't he?
EG: $5 tax on every hour you work.
guy who works 1 hour only pays $5, resulting in him bringing home $95
Whereas
guy who works 2 hours pays $10 to earn that $100, so he only brings home $90
This leads me to believe that the skilled worker will pay 1/2 the tax amount that the unskilled worker will.
skilled worker pays $200(5x40) tax but he earns $4000 > thus take home pay is $3,800 for a 40 hour week.
unskilled worker also pays $200 tax if he works 40 hours, but only brings home $1800 as he only earns $2,000 for his 40 hours work.
If unskilled worker earned $4000 like the skilled worker, not only would he have paid $400 tax on the same amount, but he would have had to work 80 hours to earn that money and then only bought home $$3600 for the same amount of money earned.
THEREFOR: I don't understand why the skilled worker is paying more tax.
I think the education debt is the price you pay for working less hours to earn more money.
Way too much room for fraud for that to work. Self-employed people could over-report hours to pay less tax, employers and employees could collude to minimise tax.
Are we expecting to pay more tax in the near future?
What exactly are we supposed to discuss here? No details have been released yet.
What would you do if you were x type of open ended discussion
would u still love me if i was a worm
uhh no but don't call me a wormophobe
Raise GST, reduce income tax. thats how it should be, the more i use the more i pay. fair.
Doesn't that still hit those who can least afford it, the most?.
Consumption tax definitely affects poorer people
what a human consumes to survive should be the same no matter how rich or poor they are
if a family decides to have 1 child because they are time poor career people they will consume less
but if your a baby factory family with 10 children of course your consumption will be higher and therefore it costs you more…..your burden on social and government services is also significantly higher
@MrThing: And then you get people who are sick and/or disabled.
Screw them if they consume more goods and services than the people who don't get sick or disabled, eh?
@MrThing: Even if you compare a range of single people who all consume the exact same things (dollar for dollar the same with the same total dollar value of GST paid), the lower income earners will pay a higher percentage of their income as GST than the higher income earners.
GST is by definition of how it is applied is a REGRESSIVE tax.
@tenpercent: Sure if they consumed exactly the same but typically wealthier people consume more, and consume higher cost goods.
@MrThing: People with more money consume more. Just watch the change in lifestyle when someone comes into money.
Having babies isn't a burden on society, the gov deliberately spends money trying to encourage it coz it's good for the economy.
But the way I see it, the gov benefits partially compensate for the increased consumption. Obviously all gov benefits should increase if GST increased, which I totally think is the way we should be going (and should have in the first place.)
Hopefully it'll give them the motivation to get richer.
Why would someone in a society care about others?
Fair point
Or pay for stuff they dont use?
@Jaduqimon: Indeed. I haven't used that fire station or hospital near Jaduqimon's house. Close them down!
@Jaduqimon: If you're not claiming more than you pay you're subsidising those who are claiming more than they pay.
@Miss B: thats fine, insurance is voluntary. if you think its not worth it for you, you can stop paying.
@Jaduqimon: Wait are you serious ?
You think home insurance and health insurance negate the need for fire stations and hospitals ?@boirganz: I don't know what he thinks, but that isn't what he is saying.
If that's what you think then you have missed the point.
@mskeggs: But you have probably used the fire station or hospital near your house whereas those in other districts didn't.
I'm thinking those sorts of services are a bit like insurance.
Everybody chips in a small amount to make the services available to as many people as possible in case they ever have to use it.
Some people may never need an ambulance, a GP, a fire engine, a hospital, any other sort of centralised social support, but it is reasonably available to most people just in case they do ever need to use it.
For example, if we didn't have a centrally funded health care system, we would end up with a system like USA where only the very wealthy could afford healthcare and the less wealthy toss up whether to see a GP for a minor illness in case it ends up bankrupting them.
Agreed, it would capture tax from the black cash economy too (drug dealers / cash in hand transaction / etc)!!
No it wouldnt. Cash in hand wouldnt report the gst anyway
And what happens when the drug dealer buys a high yield mercedes and cavier?!? - hit with the GST …
Black money avoids income tax, but they certainly pay GST on purchases …
Income tax of 0% and GST of 20% would hit cash operators the most …
@7ekn00: yes some will be captured. but your good old chinese restaurant with the broken eftpos machine wont be declaring that GST on your fried frice or income tax
@Jaduqimon: I prefer to pay cash to small business operators regardless what ethnic background they are from.
I do not care if they declare it correctly or not.@Jaduqimon: But that nail bar, hairdressers etc will keep pushing black money back into the economy for the various parties to use for high yield BMW's etc…..
exactly, rich buy more things and the extra income the poor get from reduce tax offsets the gst
Not sure why you were negged at all, consumption tax is probably the hardest form of tax to avoid. Too much rich or international organisations have so many ways of avoiding tax, but they can't avoid GST.
Think of the highly successful IKEA. Hardly paid any tax here, but they can't avoid collecting GST.
Where is GST bad, it hits the poor as well as the rich, but you can adjust for that. You at the same time raising GST increase other allowances to balance out the hit to the poor. The rich on the other hand can skip taxes with trusts negative gearing or superannuation etc etc…but at some point when they spend their money(and of course they will) they can't avoid GST.*
*GST isn't on all products currently, so i guess they can, but I'm supportive of removing nearly all exemptions too, so the GST act isn't 20,000 pages long supporting armys of tax lawyers life sytles.
Super is only a good tax deduction for those on around 135K to 250K Once your adjusted income goes over 250K super contributions are taxed at 30%. That is unless you are a politician or judge then you are exempt.
Super is an excellent tax deduction below $135K too, or are you suggesting no free cash to invest?
30% also isn't too bad comparatively if you are earning > $250K.@SlickMick: The sweet spot is between 190 and around 235. Arguably under that you mat be better looking at other investment options.
@tomfool: I totally disagree. There is no other investment options only being taxed at 15% and no CGT. If you have free cash you can invest until retirement, there is no better place for it than super.
GST is and always was just a tax on "the poors"
very few things poor people buy attract GST
You're joking, right?
@Jaduqimon: Oh yes. All the poor people and their purchases of…
precious metals
sales through duty-free shops
grants of land by government
farmland/s
How about clothing? Something as basic as clothing that everyone including "the poors" need.
How about bus and train fares?
Petrol?
An old beater car?
Fast food (yes, the poors tend to buy more fast food than everyone else) or even just a cooked whole roast chicken from Colesworth to make dinner easy for a single mum after working a long day and not spending any time with her kids? Sorry, you're going to get flogged with GST on that too, mum.
@tenpercent: I said very few things. I didn't say nothing at all.
the GST they pay on those goods will be covered by reduction in income tax. so Mum's long day at work, she will take home more pay for that chicken dinner.
@Jaduqimon: Mum's barely earning more than minimum wage. She already has no spare change even with a lower tax rate and some centrelink payments.
There are many things which attract GST which ought not (and vice versa). And no matter how you dice it, poor people pay a higher percentage of their income on GST than do less poor people. GST is a regressive tax; literally the opposite of a progressive tax (not that I am advocating for that; a flat income tax rate with a generous tax free threshold is much fairer).
@tenpercent: sounds like minimum wage is the problem in your scenario, not GST. Minimum wage still attracts a 16% marginal tax rate currently.
They can broaden the GST free categories for the poor but I also don't mind a flat tax rate. it just feels shit when the government takes 50c for every dollar I make after a certain point and they don't even spend it wisely.
sounds like minimum wage is the problem in your scenario
No, the problem is your idea of switching from income tax to a much higher and wholly regressive tax (GST).
it just feels shit when the government takes 50c for every dollar I make after a certain point and they don't even spend it wisely.
I agree. Been there, done that. Companies don't get taxed so highly and they get to write off all expenses against their income.
@Jaduqimon: I agree. GST is the solution. The way it was implemented was atrocious.
Gov just needs to balance the tax with the assistance so the poor can afford it (unless basic goods aren't taxed, but that was one of the things they screwed up the first time, and seems to unnecessarily complicate the system.)
@Muppet Detector: They may or may not. It would depend on which poor person you're comparing to which others. But I didn't make that claim.
I made the claim that they pay more GST as a percentage of their income and that GST is therefore a regressive tax.
@tenpercent: Not only is mum on a lower tax rate but she is also receiving Centrelink payments that increase her income but she is not paying income tax on that income.
Whereas
Someone on higher income pays tax on all the income he receives and does not have access to things such as reduced cost of health care and medications that those on lower incomes tend to get.
I think low income scripts are $7 vs $35 for high income?
Oh, and person on higher income pays more than low income earners for things like childcare.
When I was working with kids needing child care, it was cheaper for me to employ a nanny/housekeeper (and a gardener), than it was for me to pay childcare costs.
@Jaduqimon: You're making it sound like the bottom rung is easy street.I'm guessing you live on the other side of the tracks.
@Protractor: I don't think anybody believes that the lower incomes are easy street.
I think they are saying that those on the lower incomes pay typically pay a lot less for what they do use and consume.
I think they even get reduced charges for things like electricity, registration and rates.
Is tax rebate A and B a thing where people on lower incomes get paid money towards the cost of raising their children?
Pretty sure lower incomes also get rental assistance too, don't they?
So, reduced childcare, healthcare, higher access to most Centrelink type payments (aren't most means tested?) as well as other stuff I've mentioned?
Probably other stuff as well.
Fast food (yes, the poors tend to buy more fast food than everyone else) or even just a cooked whole roast chicken from Colesworth to make dinner easy for a single mum after working a long day and not spending any time with her kids? Sorry, you're going to get flogged with GST on that too, mum.
my small violin is working overtime on this emotional garbage
a precooked whole roast chicken from the supermarket attracts GST, buy an uncooked chicken…no gst, its quite easy to buy food and totally avoid any GST…..but frozen meals and cans of coke all attract GST
@MrThing: The single mum (not by choice; she is a widower after an Ozbargainer collided with her hubby at a roundabout because they don't know how to drive properly) also has a special needs kid who needs a lot of attention so she just doesn't have enough time to work to pay the rent and other bills and make a home cooked meal from scratch every night. With the cost of living crisis and electricity prices going to the moon she could barely afford it too.
@tenpercent: Yeah/nah
You had me cheering for you right up until you tried to justify poor people needing fast food.
Your hyperbole really lost you credibility points there.
It takes 5 minutes to stick a chicken in the oven and sort out a few fresh veggies in the microwave.
And if "mum" is time poor, maybe she could cook two chickens on Monday night so she only has to heat stuff up in the microwave on Tuesday night.
And any special needs kid who can't operate a microwave is probably eligible for NDIS and can buy Lite n Easy at 30% of whatever their RRP is.
@tenpercent: Just putting it out there that even reasonably young kids can get engaged with mum in the kitchen during meal preparation.
It can actually provide a lot of covert learning opportunities too.
• practising reading by following recipes.
• practising measurement and weights by measuring ingredients.
• following multiple step instructions by following the recipe steps.
• introduction to cooking and food preparation skills.
• sorting, categorising and organising skills.Even just setting and clearing the table and afterwards cleanup can offer all sorts of covert learning opportunities for most children.
If nothing else, it is still time mum can spend with child. Meal preparation has value too.
Plus nothing stopping mum and child/ren from chatting and catching up whilst they are involved in food preparation.
@Muppet Detector: Circling back to the original comment in this sub-thread
Raise GST, reduce income tax. thats how it should be, the more i use the more i pay. fair.
and to my first comment in reply
GST is and always was just a tax on "the poors"
and putting aside the hypothetical single mum which has been taken too seriously and derailed the conversation on a tangent…
Should poorer people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than people earning higher incomes; yes or no? If yes, why? If no, then how does raising GST rates and lowering income tax rates align with that?
@tenpercent: should poorer people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes?
I know that the right answer here is "no" but I want to say "maybe".
I'm not saying I am correct, I even majored in Economics, minor Accounting in my commerce degree to try and learn about all this and understand it better and a lot of why we do what we do in these areas still isn't particularly clear to me.
I've even got a few semesters of sociology under my belt too.
But:
A few reasons:
We have a capitalist economy (which means user pays).
This also means that we operate as a meritocracy.
Despite the capitalism and meritocracy, we do have a socialist system in place to support those at the lower income levels at no additional cost to themselves.
They get access to additional income, benefits and resourses that aren't available to those on higher incomes.
- Equality => perhaps George Orwell said it best when he said "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
For true equality in economic and social terms, that looks a lot like communism and I don't think that's worked anywhere in the world.
This makes me believe that the whole equality thing is a bit of a complicated balancing act.
I don't think people should be penalised because they do have more income than others either, but this is happening but as I said, it's a balancing act to not let this discourage too many people from staying engaged.
This would go against equality, capitalism, meritocracy and bump uglies with discrimination and impinge on their human rights.
If we discourage people from earning higher incomes, eventually most people won't bother to even try because we do have that social support system, so they all end up choosing not to pursue those higher incomes and live on the welfare system instead.
Now we have a majority of people accessing a social security system that has very few (if any) people contributing taxes etc towards it.
This ends up with Bob Geldof organising Live Aid fundraisers and entire families across the whole country living on one cup of rice a week cooked in non potable water, no infrastructure, no sewerage system, nobody producing anything for anybody to consume and definitely no education or healthcare, policing, national defence, not even any jobs etc.
It may even result in nobody leading the country and implementing all this stuff because eventually there is no money to pay them either.
This results in nobody acquiring the skills needed to sustain a society, nobody building houses or being teachers or doctors etc
Nobody to enforce a legal system resulting in chaos and anarchy etc
Can you see where this is going?
I love that we live in a country where most people have a reasonable baseline to live and survive, so a little bit of communist principle/policy.
But for everybody to have that, some people do have to be more equal than others and whilst most people get participation ribbons, we've also got to reward and encourage those with the ability to produce medal winning performances.
=> there's a few of my thoughts to mull over
Yeah and pay less if you don't want to work hard.