|
Yeah, if you rich people hate paying tax so much, you're ~free to choose~ another income quintile to be in if it sucks so bad for you.
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
"Those janitors should just put some of their capital on the line and take a risk by starting a business. It's pretty simple. " - A university business lecturer
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Haters Objector posted:"Those janitors should just put some of their capital on the line and take a risk by starting a business. It's pretty simple. " - A university business lecturer Poe's Law right there.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
I say, why don't these poor people just inherit some money?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Hypation posted:a group of people who chose to get off their rear ends to take a risk, had luck on the side of their effort and are now being vastly rewarded for it. Who of course create wealth out of thin air by dint of nothing but their Randian intellects, and not from a fundamentally stable and productive economy full of people with both the confidence and disposable income to consume driven primarily by government spending. Not only that, but money also does not have marginal utility and a rich person paying 30% of their income is exactly the same as a poor person paying 30% of their income.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:45
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
The tax take just represents how much of the wealth has gone to the top quintile.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
"I only know how to pay people to make new alloys" - Hank Rearden
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
What's the vale of not being murdered in your sleep by starving people trying to steal your food? I'm pretty sure that should be factored into the calculations.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
I propose we hereby stop discussing income tax as the percentage taken from a group, but the amount remaining after tax adjustments for each group. Normalise it to hours worked. Anyone got the numbers? It'd be interested to see how much skill differential the free market declares there is between various careers.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Mad Katter posted:What's the vale of not being murdered in your sleep by starving people trying to steal your food? I'm pretty sure that should be factored into the calculations. As long as you can pay one group of the poor with the hope of becoming moderately well off to guard against the other, you're coming out ahead.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Does anyone seriously have a problem with the rich paying most, or even all, tax? Seems pretty reasonable to me, it's not like anyone is forcing them to remain rich. The argument from a neoliberal perspective is that by placing too much of the tax burden on the wealthy you're PUNISHING SUCCESS and stopping the wealthy from putting their vast intellects towards the generation of economic growth, lowering quality of life and overall revenue. If you tax that JOB CREATOR half of his profits, then he won't work as hard creating jobs and won't hire a new person to work. Lower his tax, and he'll create more jobs, which makes more productivity and growth! This of course completely ignores that "job creation" is demand-driven, not supply-driven, and that the amount of employment in the economy at any given time is an equilibrium function of the amount of consumption, on which the influence of profit-based taxes is slim, at best. If your business has the capacity (and indeed, necessity) to expand, a point where hiring a new employee will create profits, the amount on which you're taxed on that profit doesn't really matter. Whether you keep 80%, 50% or 20% of the profit, YOU'RE KEEPING THE PROFIT, and the taxes will be used to drive more consumption.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
One day I hope to be smart and hard-working enough to sit in a boardroom and watch powerpoint presentations about how outsourcing my company's manafacturing division to Chittagong has improved unit profitability by 17%
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:The argument from a neoliberal perspective is that by placing too much of the tax burden on the wealthy you're PUNISHING SUCCESS and stopping the wealthy from putting their vast intellects towards the generation of economic growth, lowering quality of life and overall revenue. It's an argument, sure, but it's one that we can pretty safely discount.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Haters Objector posted:One day I hope to be smart and hard-working enough to sit in a boardroom and watch powerpoint presentations about how outsourcing my company's manafacturing division to Chittagong has improved unit profitability by 17% what i really like is how kids growing up in disadvantage and without access to good education or a stable support system that enables them to take advantage of good education are written off as "just not as smart or talented" seems fair to me
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Guys, why do I have to pay for third party insurance to get my car registered? If someone gets hit by my car, it obviously must've been their fault for not having the skill and drive to get out of my way. Why should I have to pay to fix up the cars of these lovely drivers?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Note that there is a neoliberal solution to the paradox of the very real fact that government spending drives growth combined with the belief that increasing taxes lowers growth - fund it with debt. As long as the payments on debt are lower than the rate of economic growth, you're golden (well, up until you run headfirst into the physical and environmental limits on economic expansion, but as we all know they don't exist). That, of course, presupposes that a) your tax revenues grow linearly with economic growth, and b) that you are politically and practically able to manage a certain amount of government debt. Of course, no party would be stupid enough to slash a bunch of taxes, decoupling revenue from growth, and attack the neoliberal economics of an opposing political party on the grounds of surplus and debt for so long that the concepts become engrained in the public zeitgeist and create an uncontrollable rhetorical beast, destroying even their own ability to employ debt economics to drive the economy, right?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:Guys, why do I have to pay for third party insurance to get my car registered? If someone gets hit by my car, it obviously must've been their fault for not having the skill and drive to get out of my way. Why should I have to pay to fix up the cars of these lovely drivers? The real question is why don't we have universal car insurance.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:01
|
|
Those On My Left posted:what i really like is how kids growing up in disadvantage and without access to good education or a stable support system that enables them to take advantage of good education are written off as "just not as smart or talented" Those kids should have thought harder about being poor if they wanted to grow up to be an investment banker, adjunct lecturer in accounting and finance, fellow of FINSIA and all-round financial whiz/nice guy, I guess.
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
Just found some youtube videos of one of my man crushes, David Mitchell talking about the idea of sustainability and burden of proof. Both are well worth a watch only a few minutes in length each. Sustainability https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syii9DKnb2M Burden of proof https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI5ulKiZAoE Sorry I just wanted to break people away from Hypation's poo poo-and-run Freudian Slip fucked around with this message at 06:13 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
 A self made man. If the argument is so open and shut why aren't either my own blog or Matt Cowgill's being directly argued against? C and P ing some Lolberterian rubbish might seem like a compelling plan but how about we actually get some analysis and/or debate happening?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:If there is a demand for it, the free market will support refugee agencies! Unless it involved boycotting the business interests of an Important Election Campaign Donor. Because we can't have that going on.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:What about those who got lucky in life being born to rich parents? Here is the BRW50 young rich list. How many are rich due to inheritance vs entrepreneurship? http://www.brw.com.au/lists/young-rich/2013/ How many people who were born from rich parents actually made a significant contribution to the increase of the family fortune? Besides when it comes to getting a job, straight HDs beats your daddy (almost) every time. Even so given the importance of education as a lever for social mobility I'd be expanding HECS so that you could capitalise living expenses as well as fees on it. Those On My Left posted:Jesus christ you are an odious prick. Well that's a rather dismissive judgement ... Quite similar to this one: Sanguine posted:I also notice from that report that over half of all income is in the first quintile. I can only assume this means that a person from the top 1 in 5 works more than twice as hard as 4 people from the remaining population combined.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
http://www.brw.com.au/lists/rich-200/2013/ Try this list you disingenuous clown car pilot. Or maybe this one: http://www.brw.com.au/lists/rich-families/2013/ Also try to actually make an actual argument. I note (for instance) that several of the people on your entirely disingenuous list don't even have tertiary qualifications. Where are their HD's helping them get jobs? Why is a broader tax base better?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Hypation, you're being purposely obtuse. Just because a rich person who actually did have some skill and education behind getting there will outperform the trust fund nepotism baby, that doesn't defeat the point we're trying to make. The point is, those nepotism babies exist, and they aren't working at least 8 times as hard as a poor person who has just as much if not more skill than them. And Sanguine's point was rightfully dismissive, of the loving stupid idea it was criticizing, which you have dismissed the need to make any reasonable defense of. Go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Note when replying to Hypation that he was once banned for being mistaken for a poster who deliberately expressed ridiculous positions for trolling purposes
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
Hypation posted:Here is the BRW50 young rich list. How many are rich due to inheritance vs entrepreneurship? How many of them are rich without having to rely on government spending-driven aggregate demand? The question of where they made their money is immaterial (although I will guarantee you very few of that list, even if they did not start out megabucks-rich, did not start out POOR). Being wealthy they, by definition, have benefited far, far more than other people from the continued maintenance of the Australian system, the protection of property rights, the administration of justice and the management of the economy, especially the significant amounts of redistributive spending and legislatively-backed high wages that drive consumption in Australia. Like Open said, if the burden of having to pay taxes on their fabulous wealth is too much to bear, nothing is stopping them from choosing to be poor. Nothing is stopping them from leaving the crushing embrace of the vast protection of the Australian government and fleeing to more open climes, where the burden of society does not hold back their natural abilities, such as Somalia. Quantum Mechanic fucked around with this message at 06:47 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
quote:A Special Commission of Inquiry into allegations of a cover-up of child sexual abuse claims in the Catholic diocese of Maitland-Newcastle has released findings that are damning of the man who claimed to blow the whistle. Welp.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
adamantium|wang posted:Welp. That is incredible.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Thanks, that's sort of what I wanted, but not the actual thing I remembered reading. I can calculate the numbers I wanted from those tables.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Hypation posted:Here is the BRW50 young rich list. How many are rich due to inheritance vs entrepreneurship? All else aside, I love that the top on this list are using 457 visas to 'reverse the brain drain'. They are hiring non-Australian citizens to fill skilled roles and claiming this somehow is stopping skilled Australians leaving the country. They have skilled jobs and are pointedly hiring foreigners to fill them. This clearly helps Australians with skills by I guess Australians don't get enough HDs? 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-30/ryan-and-morrow-suspended-over-alleged-racist-remark/5489916quote:Grandstand rugby league commentators David Morrow and Warren Ryan have been stood down pending an investigation into an alleged racist remark broadcast on air.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Hypation posted:So the math works by considering the tax burden on individuals which is the tax they pay minus the deductions and rebates they receive. For example, suppose you divide an economy into two groups A and B and: Since the government doesn't actually keep any money, the tax burden is zero. Group A is happy to hear this, since they had erroneously thought they were paying tax.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
Hypation posted:Here is the BRW50 young rich list. How many are rich due to inheritance vs entrepreneurship? The BRW lists aren't a good indication of wealth given that many people actively try to avoid ending on that list but if you have a look at that list itself, most of the people there either worked for rich people or were financed by them. I'm surprised you think having good marks makes a difference compared to family given that you work in finance as well. The fact that you're doing 60 hours weeks and working and earning money/providing advice for clients richer than you most of the time shows that hard work and intelligence means jack poo poo compared to what people are born with. No amount of HDs is going to be able to get your a job or provide you with connections compared to if your daddy was a partner at say Blackstone or CVC.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
Also, there's the issue about the extent to which coming from a "good family" (ugh) affects your capacity to get good marks. I mean it's pretty dim to say "it's just about how smart or talented you are" without observing that your smarts and talents are cultivated and developed (or not) in your education, and your family's location on the socio-economic spectrum determines what kind of education you get.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Hypation posted:In looking at the tax burden of each group: E: Trying to define the "tax burden" in terms of the percentage of net figures is fairly nonsensical. Doctor Spaceman fucked around with this message at 08:01 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
And if these rich shitheads with all their superior smarts and knowledge and education still can't work up enough mental capacity to imagine "gee, things might really suck hard for me in ways X, Y, and Z if I didn't have this money", I don't see how they expect those inferior poor people to raise their children with any awareness of how to navigate the alien world of corporate culture and become great enlightened risk-taking entrepreneurs.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
While we're debunking myths, here's a few more common quick ones you can tackle:quote:"we're paying $1 billion in interest repayments each month!" quote:"the $80 billion removed from health and education is just money that was overpromised by the Labor Government!"
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
Hypation posted:Here is the BRW50 young rich list. How many are rich due to inheritance vs entrepreneurship?  That list purposely only includes self-made wealthy people, ignoramus.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
Nuclear Spy posted:While we're debunking myths, here's a few more common quick ones you can tackle: The first one is accurate enough (Table 7). The problem with statements like it isn't what they say, but what context they do or don't have. ~12B / year is 0.8% of GDP and about 3% of government revenue, which is exceptionally manageable. The second is dodgier. The forward estimates are the 4 year period (current year + 3 more) for which the government / treasury feels pretty confident making predictions (like a 3-day forecast in weather). Many policies are only really sketched out beyond that (for obvious reasons), but there's an underlying assumption that things will continue on trend unless specified. So while Labor didn't explicitly go into full detail on how stuff would be funded and run beyond the forward estimates, there was no expectation or requirement for them to. The Coalition have flagged massive cuts outside of the forward estimates, and their justification for why doing so isn't breaking a promise essentially "you never asked". The States were clearly surprised about the planned changes, for one.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
Scott Morrison is here to set the record straight on why he cut funding to the refugee councilquote:Scott Morrison says Refugee Council's funding was cut because taxes should not support advocacy So there you have it - he did it for his own ideology not even the parties. This is him explaining himself. Scott Morrison is scum.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 08:35
|
|
