|
Anidav posted:His experience with the system is "all my best high school friends became bludgers" Did they go to uni? If so, what did they study? Is he aware that youth unemployment is at a record high, and that might have something to do with why all his friends are now "bludgers"? Is he still finishing his studies? Is he working right now? How much is he getting by on? How much does he think someone actually needs per week to get by? And what would he think of someone working full-time, clearly not a bludger, who's now working poor because despite all their hard work they aren't making enough to get by on that lowered minimum wage he wants?
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:12 |
|
|
Lid posted:Holy poo poo Keep picking that scab, Joe
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Welfare is bad because it robs the wretched masses of their impetus to rise up, murder the ruling class and institute a better welfare state. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Anidav posted:His reply is that Europe is hosed and will never recover and that the Government should test Youth Allowance, DSP, Pension and Superannuation against Household income in both sharehouse and family home environments. This will ensure no one can outright rely on government payments and cause "maximum employment in all age groups". And what should "maximum employment" be anyway? quote:Also we must abolish the minimum wage because business is better at deciding what the minimum wage should be because they are closer to analysing costs moreso than the government ever will be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Endman posted:Welfare is bad because it robs the wretched masses of their impetus to rise up, murder the ruling class and institute a better welfare state.  we're going revolutioning 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
There's a wealth of resources out there for somebody inclined to look, I just find it unlikely that somebody like him who's so tarred by his own limited experience would risk his worldview by looking at the perspective of the other side in an honest way. For example, the business council has consistently held the view that the newstart and other allowances are too low and actually hurt people who are job hunting. When an alliance of business leaders come together to point out that welfare isn't high enough, that's probably a sign that something needs to be done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
epipen posted:
Would ride in 10/10
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
epipen posted:
Just make sure you do something to prevent the car... Stalin 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
US minimum wage: $7 and a bit. US minimum *tipped* wage: $2 and a bit. Almost African levels, must try harder...
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
chyaroh posted:US minimum wage: $7 and a bit. PPP adjustments make it look slightly better, but it's still obscene.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Les Affaires posted:Just make sure you do something to prevent the car... Stalin yeah i'll be sure to purge the fuel tank of bad fuel before i start it up  
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Anidav posted:No, I'm in Fat Louie's. Where students of all Universities go and talk things. ROFL, what the hell. Guy complains about bludgers and welfare in FAT LOUIE'S of all places. That's pretty much the lowest cost bar in town, who the hell is this guy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Speaking of minimum wage. When a company in Australia outsources the majority of its workforce because it can't deal with paying Australian wages, is there any reason we shouldn't seize all their assets remaining in-country and deport them to whichever third world country they hired their workforce from?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Haters Objector posted:Because he was forced to apologize and still doesn't think he has done anything wrong. A natural consequence of being a silver spoon baby with no understanding of consequences The evidence suggests that he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Endman posted:Speaking of minimum wage. When a company in Australia outsources the majority of its workforce because it can't deal with paying Australian wages, is there any reason we shouldn't seize all their assets remaining in-country and deport them to whichever third world country they hired their workforce from? This is EXACTLY what we should do the next time one of those mining barons starts bitching, really.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
epipen posted:
*Car Radio* 'As the poor man saw the true economic powers he lives in the slum, counting down his final hours with a nail in a board and his kids under the bed he'll fight with his strength until the oppressors are dead.' *need to think the rest of this song later* CrazyTolradi posted:ROFL, what the hell. Guy complains about bludgers and welfare in FAT LOUIE'S of all places. That's pretty much the lowest cost bar in town, who the hell is this guy? A uni student who works 2 jobs and thinks anyone who doesn't can do better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
So what is negative gearing, and what are these superannuation tax concessions I keep seeing allusions to, and why are they both allegedly so bad?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Anidav posted:A uni student who works 2 jobs and thinks anyone who doesn't can do better. Wait till he's 30 and had to scrounge for minimum wage work post uni. By that point people usually grow out of libertarian stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
I had a job interview last Friday and it lasted an hour, they said they would call me if I got the job and today is Tuesday  Also: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-worst-for-youth-unemployment-20140818-105k2c.html Why Queensland, Why
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:So what is negative gearing, and what are these superannuation tax concessions I keep seeing allusions to, and why are they both allegedly so bad? Negative gearing is a tax write-off for when you borrow money against a property, but the rent or income generated by the property doesn't cover interest on the loan. Long story short, it allows rich people to dodge a shitload of tax on their income by throwing it into the property market and claiming losses. quote:Negative gearing by property investors reduced personal income tax revenue in Australia by $600 million in the 2001-02 tax year, $3.9 billion in 2004-05 and $13.2 billion in 2010-11. And what do we get out of that? People who have the money to do so can build wealth portfolios without paying a dime in tax. Superannuation tax concessions are similar, tax write-offs for dumping your money into superannuation portfolios which actually INCREASE the more money you dump, supposedly as an "incentive" for people to save for the future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:25
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
Negative gearing is a tax concession. People buy a house with the intention of renting it out for less then the minimum repayments a year. You can then claim that difference against the tax you should have paid and pay less tax. You 'lose' money year after year on the property (which you claim against your tax) as the idea is when you sell it its increased in value so the profit of selling eclipses your loses and you gained all the tax credits you received. There's a lot of reasons to criticise. It's single handily responsible for the property price increases we've seen as anyone with money or an existing home can easily get a second property, first home buyers and the poor are pushed out. There's also the cost of the lost tax revenues (Howard slashed Capital Gains tax so the pay less when they sell too), at the moment it's something like $15 billion a year just on the negative gearing breaks. Superannuation tax concessions is receiving a tax break from putting your money into super instead of taking it as wages now. Super is taxed at like 15% up to 50k or something like that, so lower then the marginal tax rates. After that I think it goes up to 30% (till you earn 300k, then it's 40% or something like that), which is still less then the top marginal tax rates. Basically the more money you dump into super you can pay less tax. Great if you are on higher income and can afford to dump money into super, doesn't do much for poor people. Big tax breaks for super, I think it's like $30-$40 billion in lost revenue per year and going up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
It should also be noted that the original idea behind negative gearing, at least publicly, was to increase the supply of rental properties and lower prices by allowing property owners an incentive to decrease rents. Of course, it costs the budget far more to lower average rents by a dollar through negative gearing than it does to lower average rents by a dollar through provision of public housing, but the ~*private sector is always more efficient*~
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:So what is negative gearing, and what are these superannuation tax concessions I keep seeing allusions to, and why are they both allegedly so bad? Negative gearing: Basically, you borrow money to buy an investment property BUT don't receive enough income from the rental income to cover the interest and upkeep (Rates etc). However, the shortfall, in Australia, is tax deductible. This is a big reason for the awful property bubble we have. In Canada it's gone to the extreme where they have the $1,000,000 houses that look like there will be a sub clause in the contract regarding used syringes and crackpipes. Someone in the industry might be able to explain it better. efb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:So what is negative gearing, and what are these superannuation tax concessions I keep seeing allusions to, and why are they both allegedly so bad? Negative gearing is when you lease out a property at a loss, giving you a tax deduction (eventually the loan is paid off and / or the property is sold, which is where the actual profit comes in). It encourages speculation on real-estate (pushing prices up), it favours the rich, and it reduces government revenue. There are several kinds of superannuation concessions, all of which are designed to encourage retirement saving. Higher income earners can put money into super that is taxed at a rate significantly less than the marginal rate they would otherwise be paying. Suppose I'm rich and get a 10k salary increase. If I do nothing special with that money, it'll be taxed at the top marginal rate (45%, ignoring Medicare). If I invest it in super, that money would be taxed at a much lower figure. Unless a poor, non-car-haver I don't live paycheque to paycheque, so I can easily invest the money and become even richer in the future. It's bad because the rich get richer and the government doesn't get the money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Of course, it costs the budget far more to lower average rents by a dollar through negative gearing than it does to lower average rents by a dollar through provision of public housing, but the ~*private sector is always more efficient*~ Actually this here is something I should expand on as far as arguing about economics goes. It's common for us to say neoliberal programs don't work. It's a useful shorthand. It's not actually entirely correct, though. Most of these sorts of programs work. Negative gearing does lower rents. Super tax concessions do make people save more for their retirements. The issue is whether or not they are, on a dollar of government spending or lost revenue basis, more effective than providing these things publicly, and the answer to that is an emphatic no. Unfortunately the right have successfully changed the message to the point where tax breaks are not considered "government spending."
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Anidav, ring the company you interviewed for and say "Hello, my name is Anidav, I interviewed Friday with X, could I speak to X please? Hello, X its Anidav, can you let me know whats happening?" I mean man, c'mon FFS
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Oh and the argument for super is that money will be saved from not having to pay pensions. Of course would someone earning $100k+ have ended up been able to claim a pension anyway? Probably not so the people gaining the most from super will be outside the pension system anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Negative gearing does lower rents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:So what is negative gearing, and what are these superannuation tax concessions I keep seeing allusions to, and why are they both allegedly so bad? Negative gearing is the ability for a person to claim losses on a rental property including mortgage interest as "negative" income on their tax for the year. Normally this is made up for in the long run by capital gains. This has the effect of the government forgoing your highest marginal tax in the current year and replacing it with capital gains tax in future years which will be discounted to 50% of their amount since you held it more than 12 months. Obviously this rort gets better the higher up the tax scale you go, and is unavailable to someone without a big chunk of income they are able to forgo. Super tax concessions are referring to the income that a super balance earns every year being untaxed AND then being untaxed when they are drawn down later when the person is old. Also the people who have the extra income to deposit to super (which is NOT the middle class) get that income taxed at only 15%, which is about 30% of their normal tax rate. Someone on $30k actually gets taxed more than their normal rate if they deposit to super.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
There's another thing related to superannuation and tax concessions (that was introduced with the mining tax): if you are a low-income earner (under 37k), you will receive a tax rebate of up to $500 for super contributions. Except the Coalition Doctor Spaceman fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Aug 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:I've seen people argue that it doesn't make much of a difference. This argument relates to the fact that it creates investor demand, reducing the supply for homebuyers and crowding them out of the market. This in turn causes the median rent to approach the median mortgage payment because equilibrium points are fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Actually this here is something I should expand on as far as arguing about economics goes. eh, even that's debatable. Rents have increased with the increase of housing prices (people can only eat so much in losses, I think the average is $20k a year) and higher incomes, unless they're completely hopeless with money, will have their retirements covered anyway or certainly have assets to stop them getting the pension. Depends where you put the goal posts but the publicly stated goals of these programs, I think, haven't succeed. Even if negative gearing did originally lower rents its since been eclipsed and no one tried to pump the breaks years ago when it started overtaking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/tools-and-resources/calculators-and-tools/super-co-contribution-calculator http://www.superguide.com.au/how-super-works/cashing-in-on-the-co-contribution-rules co contribution is still here for the time being
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
BCR posted:https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/tools-and-resources/calculators-and-tools/super-co-contribution-calculator Oh cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Nibbles! posted:Oh and the argument for super is that money will be saved from not having to pay pensions. Of course would someone earning $100k+ have ended up been able to claim a pension anyway? Probably not so the people gaining the most from super will be outside the pension system anyway. If they funnel that $100k salary into their primary residence, then currently its exempt from the pension asset test.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
BCR posted:Anidav, ring the company you interviewed for and say "Hello, my name is Anidav, I interviewed Friday with X, could I speak to X please? Hello, X its Anidav, can you let me know whats happening?" Give me hacks on how to redial a private number. Nevermind, I found a office number, asked for *insert name of person who interviewed me here* Got blocked by a secretary. Said she was unavailable today, tomorrow and the next day. Sounds like I lost again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
Anidav posted:Quickly, how do you deal with a person who says the "inflated welfare state" will destroy first world nations and lead them down a path of "government reliance and degeneracy"? Point out that their argument comes from stormfront.org and then place a bullet between their ears.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Nibbles! posted:eh, even that's debatable. Rents have increased with the increase of housing prices (people can only eat so much in losses, I think the average is $20k a year) and higher incomes, unless they're completely hopeless with money, will have their retirements covered anyway or certainly have assets to stop them getting the pension. From an economic point of view, negative gearing just equalises the amount of rent you pay for a property with the mortgage rate if you bought it today. If a person has held that property for ten years, those ten years of payments and a normalised rate of increase valuation mean the property owner is at an advantage. Fixing negative gearing is a complex and delicate task, because there are so many people invested in the status quo, from banks, mortgage brokers, renovation and construction industry, property developers and property management. On top of that, because it is held as "the dream" for people too risk averse to consider alternative forms of investment, it's difficult to sell an outright scrapping to the general public. The problems with negative gearing need to be seen through a wider picture of the overall problems with housing supply and demand, for which councils and planning agencies have a part to play. Every council that knocks back a development application proposing to increase housing density instead of expanding new residential zones is complicit with this, just like every person who puts their 20th debt funded property into their "portfolio" does through the reduced availability of homes to purchase.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
They don't need to scrap it though, just start applying the breaks. No negative gearing on your 3+ investment house unless its a new build in x area, for example. I think high density housing is one of those things that's just going to take time to sell. Residents are the ones who complain currently; years down the track when it's their inheriting kids looking to cash in and pressures from people as there's just no more housing it's going to go down much easier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:12 |
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:I've seen people argue that it doesn't make much of a difference. These two statements aren't mutually exclusive It's just a matter of how much you have to spend to reduce average rents by a dollar. Nibbles! posted:Depends where you put the goal posts but the publicly stated goals of these programs, I think, haven't succeed. Which is why I'm intentionally putting the goalposts as low as possible on that statement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 06:00
|
|