We take the latest South Park joint for a jaunt on the toilet... will it flush?
South Park: The Fractured But Whole Review!
We chat with the game director and creative head of Machine Games about the upcoming title where killing Nazis is all the rage.
A Happy Ending Filled with Nazis – Wolfenstein II Interview!
From the creators of Payday comes a new action title where you get to steal back treasure from Nazis.
Win a Copy of RAID World War II on PS4
Federal Budget 2013
carson
Gippsland, Victoria
1892 posts
There wasn't a thread for this, so what does everyone think of the budget?

ABC has a good interactive map about where the funding is going.

As a uni student I feel we got shafted and don't understand the push for education reform/funding yet cutting uni funding. When was higher ed not just as important as primary and secondary? State cuts last year from the Vic Liberal gov has seen the closure of two of my universities campuses, which is sad.

Other than that, not much effects me. I still get my Obama fun bux and $1000 student grant at the start of each semester (which now gets added to HECS).
08:49am 15/05/13 Permalink
system
Internet
--
08:49am 15/05/13 Permalink
Spook
Brisbane, Queensland
35690 posts
i am thankful i have had my previous beautiful children already, so i could get paid for them.

i feel sorry for future parents having to miss out on nice tvs.
08:56am 15/05/13 Permalink
Sc00bs
Brisbane, Queensland
9139 posts
how much do you get as a student these days from centrelink? i remember it use to be f*** all
09:09am 15/05/13 Permalink
CHUB
Brisbane, Queensland
8805 posts
how much do you get as a student these days from centrelink? i remember it use to be f*** all
$400 a fortnight. ~$530 with rent assistance.
09:18am 15/05/13 Permalink
Sc00bs
Brisbane, Queensland
9140 posts
f*** me, thats not even my rent covered :/
09:20am 15/05/13 Permalink
dais
Brisbane, Queensland
10949 posts
Good news for people who work part time.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-14/budget-2013-winners-and-losers/4689252

$300 million to support jobseekers, including allowing Newstart recipients to earn more from paid work – up to $100 a fortnight from the current $62 a fortnight, and indexed from July 2015
09:28am 15/05/13 Permalink
paveway
Brisbane, Queensland
18119 posts
I don't think the point of it is to fully sustain an unemployed uni student in their own apartment
09:31am 15/05/13 Permalink
carson
Gippsland, Victoria
1893 posts
how much do you get as a student these days from centrelink? i remember it use to be f*** all

It's still f*** all. It's below the poverty line, that's for sure. For me, including rent assistance, it's like $485. It's barely enough to survive on. Being in my mid 20s, with only experience in s***** farming or factory jobs and not previous qualifications I'm having an incredibly difficult time finding work in the suburbs (north-east melb).

I wish the payments were higher, it's not much fun to live on.
09:36am 15/05/13 Permalink
Sc00bs
Brisbane, Queensland
9141 posts
i dont think 400 a fortnight would fully sustain anyone unless they lived at home

i live with 2 other ppl, pay 1/3 of the bills and 400 a fortnight wouldnt pay my portion of the rent

letalone food, elec, phone, loan repayments...

They really make it easy for uni students dont they :/
09:38am 15/05/13 Permalink
reload!
Brisbane, Queensland
7318 posts
the way centrelink works for students is completely retarded. it isn't realistic that you can live on $500 a fortnight without part time work but then if you earn more than $100 a fortnight it deducts from centrelink rendering the whole point useless. your option is to either survive right on the edge on that amount or work fulltime. the middle ground doesnt work whatsoever. not saying you shouldnt be able to work fulltime and study fulltime but why even give you the option if it doesnt encourage either scenario particularly well. the only people it really helps are those that can get the $500 a fortnight while also being supported by parents or someone else which, if you are in that situation, isn't really the people that need centrelink the most.
09:41am 15/05/13 Permalink
paveway
Brisbane, Queensland
18120 posts
If you are at uni full time and living somewhere sharing with 3 other people and rent is still costing you more than $200 a week, you need to move somewhere else and downgrade.

Good to see that ridiculus baby bonus crap has been cut down significally. Should have been pulled ages ago, breeders are still going to breed regardless
09:45am 15/05/13 Permalink
Eorl
Brisbane, Queensland
9214 posts
My roommate has the same problem, can barely live on what he gets after paying bills but luckily sharing a house with three others cuts the rent down a hefty amount. He had to actually dip into that yearly loan payment that they offer because his computer blew and desperately needed a working one for his Engineering degree.

I remember when I was on Youth Allowance it was just enough and I had to cut back on a fair few things like social life to actually live and study. Getting a job was actually rough like reload said, just because I had to actually decline hours because it would affect my pay and make it worse.

Obviously though if you are working a job that is giving you more than $500 a fortnight and studying you should be sweet, which is kind of the idea. Start on Youth Allowance and then work your way to a stable job that pays more.
09:49am 15/05/13 Permalink
reload!
Brisbane, Queensland
7320 posts
you should be able to earn up to ~$300 a week (which is still completely f***all) and get ~$200-$300 a fortnight from centrelink. the point for students is most are happy to work 20 hours a week and only need a little bit extra. they have the whole thing backwards as f***.
09:53am 15/05/13 Permalink
Sc00bs
Brisbane, Queensland
9142 posts
good luck finding a house within 20minutes drive of the city for under 500 a week...

i share with 2 others, so rent is 600 a week.. which is completely normal and on the cheap side for my area. especially with a pool.

rent, loan and food would b in excess of 1000 a fornight for myself :/ cant really justify to myself that going back to uni would be beneficial when it will be difficult as f*** to make that + do uni
09:54am 15/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7708 posts
good luck finding a house within 20minutes drive of the city for under 500 a week...

i share with 2 others, so rent is 600 a week.. which is completely normal and on the cheap side for my area.

You can rent all through st lucia for $90-$150 a week per room, even cheaper if you go out to Taringa/Indroo/etc, which are still inner city suburbs.

especially with a pool.

....
10:03am 15/05/13 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
13688 posts
it isn't realistic that you can live on $500 a fortnight without part time work but then if you earn more than $100 a fortnight it deducts from centrelink


Really?

Looking at Youth Allowance for a Full time Student who is needs to live away from home to do their studies:

Payment is $407.50 per fortnight.
You can earn up to $405 pre-tax per fortnight before payment is affected.

So a student can have a total income of $812.50, after that their Centrelink payment is reduced 50c per extra $1 over 405, then 60c per $1 over $486.

For Austudy it is similar, you can earn up to $400 per fortnight before it affects your $407.50 payment.

Facts yo.

10:03am 15/05/13 Permalink
CHUB
Brisbane, Queensland
8806 posts
FYI you can earn $400 a fortnight as a student before your payment is affected.

If you work 10-15 hours a week you can live comfortably, you just can't buy nice things.

The $60-$100 thing is for unemployed/under-employed.
10:03am 15/05/13 Permalink
Eorl
Brisbane, Queensland
9216 posts
good luck finding a house within 20minutes drive of the city for under 500 a week...

i share with 2 others, so rent is 600 a week.. which is completely normal and on the cheap side for my area. especially with a pool.

rent, loan and food would b in excess of 1000 a fornight for myself :/ cant really justify to myself that going back to uni would be beneficial when it will be difficult as f*** to make that + do uni
My place is literally a minute from Taringa station, and we pay $480 week. Four rooms, water included and we pay elec/gas. It isn't that hard.
10:09am 15/05/13 Permalink
taggs
6149 posts
cant really justify to myself that going back to uni would be beneficial when it will be difficult as f*** to make that + do uni


What would you study if you went to university, Sc00bs?
10:09am 15/05/13 Permalink
carson
Gippsland, Victoria
1894 posts
Yeah, they want to encourage uni as an option, but make it hard as f*** to survive. I have a feeling it's going to get worse with these cuts. Last years state cuts was devastating to my university and my gfs. It's caused 2 campuses to shut for me, my gfs uni lost a tonne of staff (her teachers this year commented on the fact that now it takes longer to mark because of lack of staff and the teachers load has increased), and reduced support for students at the campuses.

Tafe in my old hometown was gutted too, and for a lot of people in that area Tafe is a great way to get some skills under their belt to secure decent employment.

Houses in QLD are expensive. I'm in a 3BR two storey place that's like 20~mins from melb and only pay 350 a week (split 3 ways).
10:09am 15/05/13 Permalink
Eorl
Brisbane, Queensland
9217 posts
Question is, what would a Liberal government do to help get the budget in surplus? Would they continue these cuts to Youth Allowance and AusStudy?
10:11am 15/05/13 Permalink
deadlyf
Queensland
3097 posts
When was higher ed not just as important as primary and secondary?
If this is a serious question then they really need to work on primary and secondary education more. Education works from the ground up, if your early education was poor you won't have much chance later on.

I'd like to see them be more elegant with funding cuts to tertiary education, my sister for example is doing a degree in fine arts which IMO is a huge drain on tax payer dollars and is taking away funding from courses that will actually result in jobs. I get that having those sort of courses available is important but I don't think they should be given the same level of benefit as a skill based course that will result in a higher chance of employment.

Also, isn't a part of this budget making it easier for people to earn money while on centerlink? Dunno why people are complaining about something they are fixing.
10:12am 15/05/13 Permalink
E.T.
Queensland
4604 posts
WTF is "General purpose inter-government transactions" and why does it cost $52.4 Billion ?
10:18am 15/05/13 Permalink
carson
Gippsland, Victoria
1895 posts
If this is a serious question then they really need to work on primary and secondary education more. Education works from the ground up, if your early education was poor you won't have much chance later on.

I understand this, but for a government that is so pro education, it just seems strange that they would cut funding for something like higher ed too. I guess as a uni student I see higher ed funding as more important to me. :P


Question is, what would a Liberal government do to help get the budget in surplus? Would they continue these cuts to Youth Allowance and AusStudy?

That's the million dollar question. Probably just blame Labor for everything and claim there are no boat people. Being in a deficit isn't that bad anyway, it'll stimulate growth.
10:20am 15/05/13 Permalink
taggs
6150 posts
WTF is "General purpose inter-government transactions" and why does it cost $52.4 Billion ?


Probably general purpose payments to the states (as opposed to specific purpose payments).

See: http://www.budget.gov.au/2007-08/bp3/html/bp3_main-04.htm (older budget doc but explains what they are)

Wiki has an ok explanation of why these are necessary under the current division of responsibilities between levels of government in Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_imbalance_in_Australia
10:29am 15/05/13 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
13689 posts
The current plan doesn't take too much directly away from the universities.

It averages out to be around $50 million, supposedly in 2 one off levies of 2% and 1.5% of something or other.

The rest of the 'cuts to universities' is really just removing fee discounts for paying up front, converting a bunch of scholarships into loans and tax removals.


So it isn't really that bad to the Uni bottom line.

The State Government removal of funding was worse though, as they took it after promises where made and money spent....
10:49am 15/05/13 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
13690 posts
Also, Uni's cash cow by far is International students, they are worth about 3 times as much as a domestic student.

So the high AUD has been attributed to universities having a cash squeeze due to less international students.

If you really want universities to get extra $'s for everyone's education then promoting ways to bring in more international students is a good way to go about it.

As for R&D, there is a really large disconnect between industry and university R&D, there needs to be more/better programs to bring Industrial $'s into the universities R&D and actually get some productive money making research done.
11:01am 15/05/13 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
10210 posts
How did Treasury sign off less than 6 months ago on the Budget moving into Surplus ?

I find it completely staggering that they could be so wrong.


http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/19b.png


11:40am 15/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7709 posts
Of $398 billion, that's about 5% off estimations. I'd like to see you guestimate something as fluid as the federal income for a year with better precision than that...
11:48am 15/05/13 Permalink
Taipan
USA
4168 posts
There wasn't a thread for this, so what does everyone think of the budget?ABC has a good interactive map about where the funding is going.As a uni student I feel we got shafted and don't understand the push for education reform/funding yet cutting uni funding. When was higher ed not just as important as primary and secondary? State cuts last year from the Vic Liberal gov has seen the closure of two of my universities campuses, which is sad.Other than that, not much effects me. I still get my Obama fun bux and $1000 student grant at the start of each semester (which now gets added to HECS).



No point in having uni if the foundation of education is s***house
11:50am 15/05/13 Permalink
Sc00bs
Brisbane, Queensland
9143 posts
i live 10min from city (would never live on the northside) 4 bedroom, pool etc..

Cant move anywhere smaller as i have acquired a house full of furniture (which would be pointless selling for next to nothing and having to rebuy at a later date)

rent is 500/week, between 3 ppl.
+ water, elec, internet, fuel, food, loan repayment. = over 1k a fortnight for myself. And thats not living or eating like a boss either..

Sure i could sell all my s*** and live in a shoe box off maggie noodles... but who the f*** wants to do that.

What would you study if you went to university, Sc00bs?

ive been before for 2weeks and didnt like the course i was doing so i quit and got a job that paid well. If i was to go back i would want to do landscape architecture.
12:13pm 15/05/13 Permalink
Insom
Canada
4228 posts
breeders are still going to breed regardless

basically this

so long bogan bonus
12:23pm 15/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7711 posts
I've never needed to live on 1k a fortnight, even when I rented my own apartment. For a student to be saying they need to (rather than choose to) is not a very good argument for calling the student payments tiny... You don't need a pool, or car, or furniture which you can't afford to house, you're just choosing to live way beyond your means.

And mi goreng noodles are where frugal living is at, not maggie. :P
12:32pm 15/05/13 Permalink
carson
Gippsland, Victoria
1896 posts
I've never needed to live on 1k a fortnight, even when I rented my own apartment. For a student to be saying they need to (rather than choose to) is not a very good argument for calling the student payments tiny... You don't need a pool, or car, or furniture which you can't afford to house, you're just choosing to live way beyond your means.

You need a car if you live in places with sub-par public transport.
12:36pm 15/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7712 posts
Brisbane has decent public transport in abundance, especially the student suburbs. Hell I don't need a car now and am living 30+ minutes from any public transport, and aren't relying on anybody else. I just walk.
12:41pm 15/05/13 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
13691 posts
St Lucia and suburbs around it have good public transport and looking at realestate.com I see many share accommodation for about $150-200/week. It has excellent transport to the city and nearby uni's (UQ and QUT at least).
As such, if you go to either of those uni's and are paying more than $200/week in rent perhaps it is time to think about moving.
12:44pm 15/05/13 Permalink
Sc00bs
Brisbane, Queensland
9148 posts
well seeing as i already own a car, have a loan and cant just go f*** it ill start over.. its a little more difficult than just saying "ur living above ur means"

im living withing my means atm, and if i chose to go to uni i would have to sort something out or wait till ive finished paying off my loans etc.

U have missed the point completely tho, the fact is i HAVE furniture and a car, i dont need a pool you're right but unless i go live in a share house with 1 bedroom and shared bathrooms the price of houses is relativity similar. 350-500 is about the norm for renting a house.
And then i would have to repurchase furniture i have already bought once i finish? seems bit ridiculous selling everything i own, to go live in a shoe box for 4years to then start the process of buying it all again :/

Did you go to uni as soon as you left school? or soon after? before you got loans, acquired possessions and had a full time job? Because it is hard once you live in the weekly income/ makin a budget on $800-1200/week lifestyle and then to think about cutting down to 500-800 a fornight :/

Pretty much the only way to do it these days is have no loans/bills or anything except for rent and food :(
12:45pm 15/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7713 posts
I don't have any loans beyond HECS, I don't let myself go near what I can't guarantee that I can afford. If you can afford it then it's fine, I'm just criticizing the idea that the student payments aren't quite a bit because they don't pay for your way-beyond-required choices.
12:53pm 15/05/13 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
10212 posts
so long bogan bonus


Wont somebody think of the TVs ?
12:57pm 15/05/13 Permalink
thermite
Brisbane, Queensland
11193 posts
I don't get any of the f*****g bonuses, baby bonus, fhog, that building grant thing. One day in like 50 years I will get a good lawyer and sue the government for all the unfair s*** other people got that I never got.
01:05pm 15/05/13 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
13692 posts

well seeing as i already own a car, have a loan and cant just go f*** it ill start over.. its a little more difficult than just saying "ur living above ur means"

im living withing my means atm, and if i chose to go to uni i would have to sort something out or wait till ive finished paying off my loans etc.



Wait, you have all this stuff, got yourself a loan and you are complaining that the government isn't prepared to give you enough money so you can sustain your current lifestyle and go to uni?

Welfare nation much?

edit: Are you even serious or just trolling? Do you seriously believe the government should give middle class people enough money to support their middle class lifestyle whilst they effectively retrain for 3-4 years? As if the nation could afford that.
01:27pm 15/05/13 Permalink
Tele
Gold Coast, Queensland
343 posts
Wont somebody think of the TVs ?



There goes JB HI FI's Shares.
01:32pm 15/05/13 Permalink
Dodgymon
Brisbane, Queensland
2346 posts
HAHA they are down 2.3% today
01:52pm 15/05/13 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
13695 posts
But up over 100% since June last year..
02:11pm 15/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7715 posts
Labor's summary of their budget decisions, but more importantly, narrated drawings.

05:32pm 15/05/13 Permalink
Nukleuz
Perth, Western Australia
298 posts
I find it completely staggering that they could be so wrong.


...and if it was treasury who were advising your pet Liberal party what would you be saying?

"Gee they did a great job getting their estimate within $20bn"

Edit: I have been amused by the peanut gallery today with "this disastrous government" but not much more. It's fine to say Labor have screwed up but unless you can actually suggest that there's an alternative choice with sensible policy already detailed for scrutiny, you should probably stay quiet.

Edit #2: Budget deficit figures for other countries. US - 642 billion USD. UK - 120 billion pounds. Germany - 17 billion euro's.
06:14pm 15/05/13 Permalink
carson
Gippsland, Victoria
1898 posts
The current plan doesn't take too much directly away from the universities.

It averages out to be around $50 million, supposedly in 2 one off levies of 2% and 1.5% of something or other.

The rest of the 'cuts to universities' is really just removing fee discounts for paying up front, converting a bunch of scholarships into loans and tax removals.


So it isn't really that bad to the Uni bottom line.

The State Government removal of funding was worse though, as they took it after promises where made and money spent....

After considering this, I don't think we're as bad off as was anticipated. Honestly, this budget isn't that bad. Though all nay sayers will be saying "but we were promised a surplus" blah blah, when honestly, most growth happens in a deficit and we're really not that bad off.
06:24pm 15/05/13 Permalink
skythra
Brisbane, Queensland
6574 posts
Budget deficit figures for other countries. US - 642 billion USD. UK - 120 billion pounds. Germany - 17 billion euro's.
Australia Total Debt: 4.5 Trillion dollars.
Australia GDP: 1.4 trillion dollars.

America Total debt: 16.8 Trillion dollars
America GDP: 14.9 Trillion dollars.

Have a think about posting some relative figures. Like, what's the total budget for the US UK and Germany versus the deficit. Because if your point is "at least we're not as bad as them!" it's not exactly completely true..
08:31pm 15/05/13 Permalink
reload!
Brisbane, Queensland
7321 posts
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-15/medicare-levy-increase-passes-lower-house/4692240

a woman thick skinned enough to become leader of the ALP, PM and defeat multiple leadership challenges tearing up over this? get f***ed.
utterly pathetic.
08:54pm 15/05/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13903 posts
America Total debt: 16.8 Trillion dollars
America GDP: 14.9 Trillion dollars.

Where do those numbers come from?
09:06pm 15/05/13 Permalink
mental
Brisbane, Queensland
3937 posts
I, what, no.
09:28pm 15/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7716 posts
09:38pm 15/05/13 Permalink
Reverend Evil
Wynnum, Queensland
21365 posts
Anyone else notice that Julia Gillard wears glasses now? What's the deal with that?
10:50pm 15/05/13 Permalink
skythra
Brisbane, Queensland
6578 posts
Where do those numbers come from?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Actually looking at it again i looked at the debt clock wrong *blush*

should be 59.5 trillion! lol. quite wrong.
11:06pm 15/05/13 Permalink
BlueWolf
Brisbane, Queensland
78 posts
Mmmm... a lot of sooking about uni payments.

My partner and I worked 30-40 hours a week while doing uni. I don't see why people sook so hard. Worked at a servo, decent pay for the work, pretty much your choice of which hours (I do evenings) and always jobs. She is now a lawyer (completed uni and her legal training while working) and I am about to complete my Comp Sci degree.

Some people need to harden up, especially uni students. They cry so hard, but I manage to pay my rent, pay my bills and even buy 2 cars and upgrade my pc a couple times. I can't stand their b****ing at uni... always full of excuses, never any action.

Less crying and work harder.
11:18pm 15/05/13 Permalink
Nukleuz
Perth, Western Australia
299 posts
Australia Total Debt: 4.5 Trillion dollars.


Where the hell did you get that figure? A quick peek over at the Australian Debt Clock shows our national debt at 457 billion.

Private debt, household debt, business debt etc is not a consideration of national debt.

I'm trying to point out that right now, other than China and maybe a few smaller economies the rest of the world is in an economic downturn like no other except probably the great depression.

Should the Liberals enter into power after the federal election this year they're really going to get a taste of what Labor have had to deal with since the GFC in 2007. There's no public assets left to sell off to balance the books. It's going to take real economic management skills from here on in.

Cut too deep and we risk going into a (triple dip) recession (like the UK) or riots in the streets (like Greece) because already it seems that austerity just isn't working.

I've been trying to point out to a lot of people that returning the budget to a surplus (while important) isn't a priority when your economy isn't immune to the same issues that a lot of European economies are having to deal with and that there's also a lot of important reform on the table (think NBN, Gonski, Disability Care, the Carbon Tax etc) which could potentially deliver a strong economic return through investment into green tech, better education outcomes, better assistance for the disabled which could even return them to work, a fibre network bringing us into line with the world leading countries in telecommunications etc.

I've even been fair in saying that should we have a Liberal government that I hope they'll review these policies on their merit in the hope that they can be even further improved and that the implementation (not the management) does not change for the worse.

So far, I've been disappointed by narrow minded individuals who find it easy to ride the MSM bandwagon, not think for themselves, and are seemingly happy with the idea of handing a political faction unbridled power at the next election.
11:21pm 15/05/13 Permalink
deadlyf
Queensland
3099 posts
Federal debt is around $240B. National debt is $400something billion, that includes state and council debt.

Federally I think we get a pretty good deal on debt because we are still AAA rated but Qld is only AA rated so not all debt is equal.

I have no doubt that the LNP will enact the same cut to the bone and sell everything they can policy that they've implemented at State level. I don't mind them trimming the fat in bureaucracy, I doubt anyone would suggest politicians take a pay cut though.

However, if they do it the same ham-fisted way they have in Qld it could spell disaster. It doesn't help when the minister for education stands there in one press conference talking about how we have to close and sell off schools because the state is broke and then in the next press conference announces that he wants to introduce weekend detention which will obviously cost a butt load of money to implement.
12:25am 16/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19903 posts
Sure i could sell all my s*** and live in a shoe box off maggie noodles... but who the f*** wants to do that.


yeah so thats the government's problem and Newstart should be increased... nahhhh

In the last 12 months the Welfare bill has gone up $8b.

unemployment insurance in Denmark (oh that bastion of socialist paradise) lasts for 2 years. We should limit unemployment payments to 2 years for starts and tighten up heavily on the disability entitlement - anyone who can work should work. Welfare is the big bill on our budget and it is the big problem with Australia. Everyone has their hand out.

2 year unemployment benefit
Stricter tests on disability
Scrap family tax benefit A and B
Scrap baby bonus
Scrap paid maternity leave
Small Co-payments for all public health services
Contestability on all public health services as a condition off state funding (screw state funding down)
Scrap Gonski
Take Superannuation laws back to pre-Rudd (Max $100,000 employer contribution per year).
Return to Temporary Protection Visas
Scrap 0.5 increase on medicare levy
Scrap Carbon Tax
Scrap Mining Tax
Scrap First Home Owner's Grant
Offload 12,000 public servants (mostly the fat cats earning more than $135,000)
Retain NDIS

We would be in surplus to the tune of $20b, we could all have a tax cut and be living free of refugees sucking on the government tit, and still have some money spare each year to pay back Labor's debt.

We would return to an era of personal responsibility, where people are encouraged to try harder and not have to think about what government benefits they may be missing out on by going for that promotion.

it's so simple! It's just the neither party has the guts to stop handing out the free money to everyone with their hand out.

Treasurer Swan says we face second largest revenue write-down since the Great Depression


So why is revenue up 7.5% from last year?
12:55am 16/05/13 Permalink
SheerObesity
Melbourne, Victoria
218 posts
I can't believe Labor says they have had revenue write downs and that people actually believe them... LOL.
03:03am 16/05/13 Permalink
Spook
Brisbane, Queensland
35696 posts
thank god no one of infi's ilk could ever be elected to anything relating to a position of power in this country.

its so easy when you get handed everything on a plate bro (parents/liberal politicians etc)

you are so out of touch with how tough some people do it
05:58am 16/05/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13905 posts
Looks like the Coalition will complete the implementation of the Labor budget if (when?) they win in September. That's a pretty strong endorsement of the measures IMO and is sensible policy, no need to create uncertainty. The country needs a smooth transition.

I'm a little concerned that all Tony has to say about fixing the structural issues in the budget is removing taxes and maybe giving businesses a tax break, when business tax revenue is apparently the issue at hand? Maybe he'll be proven right and relieving the business tax burden will stimulate activity and increase taxable profits. To be honest though I think we're going to see a GST increase tabled sometime soon, possibly with the states' portion of NDIS funding as the carrot. Watch all the porkchops who have written software with 10% GST hardcoded squirm ahahaha... its sad but I see this a lot :(

The Coalition's position also provides certainty to people who need it most - the disabled. The NDIS (or Disabilitycare I guess) looks like its here to stay.

I've disagreed with Gillard a lot (and despite misgivings about the broadband future I think a change is Government is probably appropriate) but this is a national legacy project that the Government can honestly be proud of, and is actual grass-roots Labor policy for once. Getting it through and getting the Liberal Premiers on board in a lame duck year of Government is some pretty good politics, well done.
I can't believe Labor says they have had revenue write downs and that people actually believe them... LOL.

Do you know what a revenue write-down is?
08:55am 16/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19904 posts
Spook, you do realize that 20 years ago we had none of the social programs or taxes on the list I just mentioned? Unemployment rules must be good for us if they are good for Denmark.

that has been the growth of our socialist state under Howard and now Rudd and Gillard. It seems each successive government wants us to become more reliant on government hand outs. I know you sure do enjoy them...
09:48am 16/05/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13910 posts
To be fair infi, middle class welfare was a staple of the Howard Government, along with the GST (good tax reform imo!) a defining element of the period really.
09:57am 16/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19905 posts
I fully accept that and am highly critical of it.
10:14am 16/05/13 Permalink
Spook
Brisbane, Queensland
35699 posts
people need a hand bro.

yes, i dont doubt there is a small percentage of people who abuse that help, thats not reason to get rid of it for everyone else.
10:28am 16/05/13 Permalink
taggs
6152 posts
people need a hand bro.


C'mon, Spook.

I don't think anyone in this thread would argue that there is no role for government to provide assistance to the needy, the disagreements arise when trying to define who meets this criterion.

Infi obviously believes there is a role for government to do this otherwise he wouldn't support the NDIS (note you can support a policy without supporting the underlying funding arrangements).

So the real question is where would you draw the line. Infi has staked out his position. You might not agree with it but I don't see you offering any alternative policy suggestions.

For example, would you say a family with one child and a single bread-winner who earns $145,000 per year needs monetary assistance from the government to help raise their kids?
10:59am 16/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19906 posts
Why does someone who already has a job need more of someone else's money?

Why do they get money they did not earn?How does the economy properly price labour if low earners are constantly getting topped up through wealth redistribution?

We should include this rule in monopoly. First and second place must give 30% of their income to third and fourth place.
11:11am 16/05/13 Permalink
Dazhel
Gold Coast, Queensland
6000 posts
We should include this rule in monopoly. First and second place must give 30% of their income to third and fourth place.


I know you're making a flippant analogy, but it was odd compared to the previous statements.
House rules like that tend to prolong a game of Monopoly disproportionately because it becomes harder for the winner to emerge and crush their opponents. That's bad in the game context (because you want an outcome) but good in a social context.

I'd hate for society to resemble a game of Monopoly any more than it already does. Is that last statement an inadvertent argument of wealth redistribution in favour of economic and social sustainability? :)
11:58am 16/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7717 posts
Why do they get money they did not earn?

Many people end up with wealth and opportunity which they did not earn, yet we don't see you supporting the types who would ban inheritance and scoring jobs at parent's companies. You're not actually interested in fairness or concerned about people getting what they did not earn.
12:07pm 16/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19908 posts
That is private property Nerfy which people can do what they wish with. Now I know Nerfy is a private property champion who is for some reason obsessed with death duties and wiping the slate clean for each successive generation so I don't know how he reconciles those two. Taxation is the forced redistribution of wealth. There is absolutely no comparison. So why should the government be in business of taking what people have earned and giving it to people who have not earned it?

I thought government was for building roads and hospitals doing community stuff, and taxes are needed for that. Now the taxes are being used to dole that money back out to other people. People who already have jobs and are not on the bones of their arse. People who don't need the money but have been judged as "more deserving" of the money than the original earner of the money.

it's amazing how capitalism is considered a philosophy of greed, when socialism is far more greed oriented. It's all about the individuals asking how much unearned money they can get from their government. Everyone competing to get a bit of someone else's money not by trade but by government intervention.
02:02pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7719 posts
So you confirm that when you say "Why do they get money they did not earn?" you don't actually mean that you have a problem with people getting money which they didn't earn, it just sounded ideologically nice at the time? You can't passionately plead such ideals and then special plead that they shouldn't be consistently applied to cases where you wouldn't like them to.
02:36pm 16/05/13 Permalink
ara
Sydney, New South Wales
3683 posts
So you confirm that when you say "Why do they get money they did not earn?" you don't actually mean that you have a problem with people getting money which they didn't earn, it just sounded nice at the time?


I think, and you probably know, he means "Why do they get money they did not earn?" outside context of gifts and charity.

I don't think he is querying why his Mum gave him 20$ for his birthday back when he was 12, for example. Likewise once you have earned (and paid tax) or built/made something, why shouldn't you be able to give it to someone without the government asking for another piece of it, be it a family member, a stranger or an organisation/charity.
02:52pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7720 posts
Yet he used charged simplistic language which was revealed as not really honest to his ideals. What he means is "Why should we help people?", which is a perfectly valid question, to which there are arguably pragmatic answers such as: Stabilizing and improving society, empathy, keeping danger at bay if we don't, as a pragmatic solution to our desire for achieving fairness, and as and a sort of collective insurance (e.g. "If there's 100 of us and 2 of us will end up with disabled kids, we each agree to cover the unfortunates in this draw of luck so that none of us lose out, when it may well be us, but we can't pull out when it turns out that we're fine" - which is how I see social security essentially being).
03:14pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Dazhel
Gold Coast, Queensland
6002 posts
Huh? There's a difference between the government taking in the form of taxation, and a benefactor bequeathing their property of their own free will. I don't see how being in favour of welfare yet being against middle class welfare is a conflicting position.
03:30pm 16/05/13 Permalink
taggs
6153 posts
What he means is "Why should we help people?


For someone so fond of accusing others of having poor reading comprehension or deliberately misinterpreting your comments I'd be wary of declaring what someone else "really meant" by their remarks.
03:32pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7721 posts
He argued his case with "Why do they get money they did not earn?". Charged language which when looked at closely, isn't part of any consistent position. The reality is that he's completely and absolutely fine with people "getting money which they did not earn", that's not really his criticism. He just tried to throw out something which was morally "bad sounding".

For someone so fond of accusing others of having poor reading comprehension or deliberately misinterpreting your comments I'd be wary of declaring what someone else "really meant" by their remarks.

I was right about him not meaning what he said at least, he defended people getting money for free when I pressed him on it in a different context, so his argument isn't really that "people shouldn't get money which they did not earn", or else he'd be a raging anti-inheritance and anti-unequal-advantage advocate.
03:36pm 16/05/13 Permalink
SheerObesity
Melbourne, Victoria
219 posts
The fact is, as you increase entitlements, it's harder in the future to get people off it when you need to cut them. They think it's all necessary for their existence.

It's like trying to weed a heroin addict off of heroin. They think they will die if they don't have their fix.
03:45pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13914 posts
Huh? There's a difference between the government taking in the form of taxation, and a benefactor bequeathing their property of their own free will. I don't see how being in favour of welfare yet being against middle class welfare is a conflicting position.

Its not, at all.

In my opinion middle-class welfare is a bad idea, because its just a transfer of money via an inefficient bureaucracy. It should be phased out as much as possible.

I do think that there is genuine need in the community though, and that the wealthiest should bear the lion's share of the burden for the poorest's welfare. Because people are c**** this must be obligatory. No person is an island and those who have done well should give back and I'd vehemently argue against reduction of progressive taxation.

One of the best things that the current Government has done is raise the tax-free threshold imo. Much better to relieve the tax burden of the poor than inefficiently redistribute wealth via dopey allowances and rebates.

Also is it just me or do lots of posts of Nerfy's turn the topic back to inheritance hatred? Rather than steering topics onto this why not create a dedicated thread on the subject Nerf?
03:49pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7722 posts
For those actually interested in whether welfare might be simply pointlessly inflating prices beyond where they should be for people at that income (despite that it frequently goes to people with little or no labour who are not expected to survive off of labour, such as students, the ill, the temporarily out of work, etc).

According to this, the total allocation for 'Assistance to the unemployed and the sick' is $9.6 billion. The total federal budget is $398.3 billion. That's only 2.4% of the federal budget. Keep in mind that's not 2.4% of Australia's wealth, that's of what is taxed through several streams. (Recent budgets have been at about 25-30% of GDP). Under half of the last budget came from income tax (there was also sales tax, resource rent tax, etc), so that's maybe about 1 cent out of every dollar of the tax that you pay going to 'the unemployed and ill'. If you're on an income of $70,000 and pay $15,347 in income tax, that's about 00.2% of your total income going towards the unemployed and ill.

(I should clarify that I was on centrelink for 2 months last year - ironically originally just to get one of the very few proof of addresses available for lodgers so that I could open an online store, but am not on it now and don't intend to be again, so am not 'defending' it for my own sake, just looking for honesty)
03:52pm 16/05/13 Permalink
taggs
6154 posts
I was right about him not meaning what he said at least, he defended people getting money for free when I pressed him on it in a different context, so his argument isn't really that "people shouldn't get money which they did not earn", or else he'd be a raging anti-inheritance and anti-unequal-advantage advocate.


Given that the exchange took place within the context of a discussion about middle-class welfare I thought it was pretty obvious that he wasn't referring to any and every instance where people receive something they didn't earn like gifts or winning the genetic lottery.

Its not, at all.


???
03:53pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Mantorok
Brisbane, Queensland
6864 posts
Also is it just me or do lots of posts of Nerfy's turn the topic back to inheritance hatred?
It's mostly because infi keeps going on about people not earning the money they get.
04:03pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7723 posts
It's mostly because infi keeps going on about people not earning the money they get.

Yep, just calling out these people's double standards. Infi will passionately defend people getting money they didn't earn in one instance, then hold it up as a giant moral boogyman in another. I hope that it dawns on him after he got himself into the position by using the literal words "Why do they get money they did not earn?" - he could be a soviet revolutionary through and through and use the exact same sentence.
04:06pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13916 posts
???

Being in favour of welfare yet being against middle-class welfare is not a conflicting position to take? Is this a quadruple negative problem or am I not missing nothing? :)
04:28pm 16/05/13 Permalink
reload!
Brisbane, Queensland
7324 posts
what a hypocritical c***bag for assuming people could apply context to a statement~!

entitled douchebaggery aside, there's a an obvious difference between public money and your parent's money. unless you're a ward of the state that is.
04:32pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Dazhel
Gold Coast, Queensland
6003 posts
???

Heh, probably my fault. I responded to two separate unrelated tangents (inheritance & welfare), one in each sentence without enough distinction between the two and Hog was simply referring to the latter.
04:46pm 16/05/13 Permalink
taggs
6155 posts
Being in favour of welfare yet being against middle-class welfare is not a conflicting position to take? Is this a quadruple negative problem or am I not missing nothing? :)


Oh, I thought you were referring the the preceding sentence (which upon rereading wouldn't really make much sense anyway).

My mistake.
05:20pm 16/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19909 posts
there's a an obvious difference between public money and your parent's money.


earned means the money came from the payer's hand to the payee's hand via a consensual relationship. what happens between private consenting individuals is none of Nerfy's or my business - as long as they are not on the government's tit which is everyone's business. being consensual, the payer and the payeee both assign a value to that wealth as they both had to trade something for the corresponding wealth.

In the form of a gift or a bequeath, the private property can be disposed as the payer wishes, the recipient is earning the money by the fact they are related and have not destroyed that relationship, thus the payer sees something of value in their relationship and thus voluntarily makes a payment to the payee. Furthermore, there is no obligation to pay the gift, nor is the recipient entitled to it.

Contrast to the government of which I place no value in and thus they must tax me by force of prosecution and imprisonment. Also contrast this to government Welfare where the recipient has no mutual obligation other than simply to exist and to be entitled. As long as they exist and they meet the qualifying legislation that money will keep dropping in the tin each fortnight like clockwork so as a result the payee assigns no value to the payment as there was no trade or payment of consideration in the other direction by the payee.

For middle class welfare it is doubly worse. people on a safety net payment are on the bones of their ass and newstart etc are so low that in itself acts as an incentive to get paid employment, but when properly employed people are one minute exchanging their labour for money and then the government announces that WOW INSTEAD OF JUST WORKING IMAGINE GETTING ANOTHER PAYMENT OF FREE MONEY FOR JUST EXISTING. Free money i.e. unearned sounds like a great deal. All we need to do is rip a bunch of it from higher income people, sure they worked for their money but they can't possibly need all that money . Better off to take a bunch of it off them and give it to other workers - because its fair or something?

if a person can't buy nice things, best to top them up with someone else's money. The idea is so absurd if you put it to a kid in the playground but the insidious political nature of the Welfare State is that it is self-perpetuating. The voters vote for more handouts so they vote for party which suggests more handouts. This then grows the vote of those enjoying handouts. Until a small portion of society is subsidising a large portion of society. Then, as France has seen, the high wealth people just leave and move elsewhere.

What a great way to create an industrious ambitious culture. Just tell your low and middle income workers, it's alright we will top you up by ripping a bunchy of money from our high achievers.
05:57pm 16/05/13 Permalink
reload!
Brisbane, Queensland
7326 posts
tl;dr
i'm going to assume it says, 'of course! this should be an implicit truth but autists such as nerfy like to nitpick every single word rather than garner the meaning behind them.'
06:51pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Dazhel
Gold Coast, Queensland
6004 posts
pretty safe assumption
07:19pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7724 posts
earned means the money came from the payer's hand to the payee's hand via a consensual relationship.

Huh? You said earned, then defined given, which is what you were raging against in the first place. Can't believe the mental acrobats you'll go to to avoid admitting that your moral-outrage is only applied when it suits your ideology, and has no consistency.

Not to mention that being part of a nation with payee rules and returns is a largely consensual relationship, which the population has control over in a democracy (you keep throwing around the word 'government' as if we live in the age of priests proclaiming that monarchs were ordained by god, as if it's not now a communal business).

IMAGINE GETTING ANOTHER PAYMENT OF FREE MONEY FOR JUST EXISTING. Free money i.e. unearned

Such a Soviet thing to say. :P Fight the Bourgeoisie leeches etc.

Naturally that rage doesn't extends to 'payments just for existing' when born to the right heritage. Whether or not 'free stuff' will make people lazy (rather than say motivate them with a taste of money) for some reason doesn't apply to things such as inheritance of money and family jobs.

Anyway. The actual unemployed and ill component of the government's spending is about 2% of the budget, about half of which comes from income tax. Let's say that we rule out all the ill, transitional, etc, cases, and say that half of them are so scummy that they'd exploit the system to get a pretty rubbish free ride. That's like 0.5% of somebody's income tax (not of income, but as a percentage of tax paid) which keeps those people from probably becoming a pretty dangerous element in society, and comes with all the benefits that having transitional unemployment financial protection brings.

But you've got your head stuck so far up the right wing ideology ass that you've convinced yourself that everybody who isn't wealthy is just lazy and out to suck money from people, instead of desperately hoping to move up and likely fighting a battle with much less advantage than others.

I don't know if I necessarily agree with the baby bonus and so on, though they could perhaps be seen as a targeted investment/tax return.
08:00pm 16/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19910 posts
Are you able to comprehend that what private people do with their money is their free choice? it is not the purview of Public Policy and debate because the government has no control or interest over it?

The issue in public policy debate here is the entitlement of individuals to money forcibly taken from other individuals by the State. the issues are completely unrelated yet you seem to keep drawing some bizarre analogy between the two. Wealth is earned because it arrived out of commercial (productive) activities, the government does not create wealth, it takes it from the economy for NECESSARY purposes.

I don't think that it is a necessary purpose of government to take money from one person who earned it fair and square and give it to another person who didn't. Now Nerfy is your position to the contrary? Do you think people who are already employed with their sitiuation in life are entitled to expect a slice of the action from their neighbour just cos he is doing better for himself?

I am keen to actually know your position because I fear that you are so clueless you opt to get tangled up in non-sensical analogies instead.
08:36pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7725 posts
Are you able to comprehend that what private people do with their money is their free choice?

That's not what you were raging about though, you were raging about "people getting money they didn't earn", inevitably becoming lazy, etc.

The issue in public policy debate here is the entitlement of individuals to money forcibly taken from other individuals by the State.

You mean paying the membership fees for living in a fantastic country? Honestly, why don't you just emigrate to Somalia or somewhere if you're so upset that maybe half a percent of people's income taxes might be going to the transitionally employed or intentionally unemployed?

who earned it fair and square

There is pretty much no such thing in reality. You getting a job at your dad's company isn't "fair and square", I don't get why you of all people go on about this. It's not possible and is like somebody talking about Santa or fairies.

Do you think people who are already employed with their sitiuation in life are entitled to expect a slice of the action from their neighbour just cos he is doing better for himself?

I think that a country should be run pragmatically, not on some hypocritical inconsistent ideological froth.
08:43pm 16/05/13 Permalink
reload!
Brisbane, Queensland
7327 posts
do you legitimately believe there is no difference between receiving the dole and infi getting a job at the family business? I know you're deliberately obtuse but f*****g seriously?
09:00pm 16/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19911 posts
This guy is full retard. Forget it.
09:03pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
13699 posts
It wont be long now.
09:17pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7726 posts
do you legitimately believe there is no difference between receiving the dole and infi getting a job at the family business? I know you're deliberately obtuse but f*****g seriously?

His raging was about how people getting money/things that they didn't earn would make them lazy etc, and the immorality of it if they didn't earn it themselves. For some reason the rules of the universe change if you call that "private" (a legal term, doesn't actually change what he predicts should happen if people get given money).

You guys keep hoping that he's saying something that he's not.
09:23pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
13700 posts
Also I don't think infi isn't against socialism (he supports NDIS), more so an extreme form of it where it gets to a point that people expect a handout, like the guy above who thinks the government should fund his middle class lifestyle so he can go to uni.

For sure people should get assistance in a wealthy country like ours, it is down right immoral not to. However it becomes a problem when that assistance is so ingrained into society that even middle income-earners have it in their budget, and to go without it brings them into the red.

09:23pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
13701 posts
I think it is pretty obvious what infi means. He is saying that the government taxing people/companies then giving that money to people who don't really need it instill a level non-productivity in a section of society who come to rely on receiving this money instead of looking to fund their own lifestyle assistance free.


Now what you both should be debating is who really needs the money. At what point do you make the cut off where someone is just milking the system, or they truly do need the assistance?
09:26pm 16/05/13 Permalink
reload!
Brisbane, Queensland
7328 posts
I don't hope he's saying anything. I think a lot of the s*** infi says is myopic and unreasonable but all your talk about him ranting and having double standards is laughable. you are without a doubt the most vitriolic f*****g rager this board has ever seen. you produce these walls of text that consistently misrepresent as well as misconstrue obvious points people try to make and then spew off about lies and mistruths as if you are some f*****g paragon of candor and justice on the internet. not a day goes by where you don't take a giant steaming s*** on a thread here with your apparent insights and unique understanding of the topic at hand.
09:36pm 16/05/13 Permalink
trillion
Brisbane, Queensland
2885 posts
I enjoy lurk reading through these infi / Nerfy exchanges. I think Nerf is one of very few that can give infi a good challenge to his ideals. I've had a good friend like infi, and at times he's proven time and time again to be one of the biggest and most miserable a******* I've ever known and will probably ever know.

It's not that he's so self centered as to not give a s*** about anyone other than himself, but you must conform to his ideals of how money works share his general opinion of how scum people that weren't born into it are (he also has rich parents that have bought him his way out of any trouble he's gotten himself into) and who until recently employed him in a high paying role simply because of being family for over a decade.

He has left the country now because he got sick of not getting his way with things even though he earned well above the scums that do not.

But it's ok for him to do these things, because when he comes back if he ever does he might still get a job working for his rich Dad doing whatever it is he's told to do.

I sure don't miss being included as fodder for his vitriolic opinions as circumstances have changed over the years.
10:20pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7727 posts
I think Nerf is one of very few that can give infi a good challenge to his ideals.

Well now I feel clever. ;)

I don't hope he's saying anything. I think a lot of the s*** infi says is myopic and unreasonable but all your talk about him ranting and having double standards is laughable. you are without a doubt the most vitriolic f*****g rager this board has ever seen. you produce these walls of text that consistently misrepresent as well as misconstrue obvious points people try to make and then spew off about lies and mistruths as if you are some f*****g paragon of candor and justice on the internet. not a day goes by where you don't take a giant steaming s*** on a thread here with your apparent insights and unique understanding of the topic at hand.

Are you sure that you weren't talking about yourself? Because, if not, you might want to consider looking in a mirror.
10:39pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Viper119
UK
2007 posts
Haven't read the thread yet (omg), but why is social security and welfare the largest slice? Bloated wellfare state!?
11:42pm 16/05/13 Permalink
greazy
Brisbane, Queensland
5850 posts
Haven't read the thread yet (omg), but why is social security and welfare the largest slice? Bloated wellfare state!?

Old people. Click on each seciton will give you a break down (displayed as a bigger ring). We need to kill some old people.
11:48pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Viper119
UK
2009 posts
That whole 'aging population' thing is a real pain.
11:54pm 16/05/13 Permalink
koopz
Brisbane, Queensland
10022 posts
it's true... old people....


I love making things 'wife friendly' here at home - but the future lies in making mum/dad/their kin able to use technology without feeling stupid while doing so


...talk about your 'big ask'


hopefully we'll get this done before the harvey-normans out there get.. no wait - hehehehe - they've no chance in hell..



carry on!
11:55pm 16/05/13 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
10217 posts
MEN with strong upper body strength are more likely to vote conservatively while physically weaker males have a greater tendency towards left-leaning views.
And stronger men are more likely to protect their resources while weaker males favour more socialist views such as wealth distribution, researchers claim.


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health-fitness/strong-men-more-likely-to-have-right-wing-views-study-reveals/story-fneuzle5-1226644975491#ixzz2TVaKKYeU

11:18am 17/05/13 Permalink
paveway
Brisbane, Queensland
18126 posts
This clearly explains spook
11:47am 17/05/13 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
884 posts
Just a quick point Nerf Lord,

I don't know how long ago you studied but in Melbourne I'm currently getting ~700-800 per month to study. If I live further out I have to spend more on public transport and let me tell you it adds up quickly.

After rent which is about 750 per month leaving 80 or so per week for food, electricity, internet, etc. I live on about 1200 and I don't think there could be a huge saving made.

Meanwhile if I have no job, and am not being educated I get 1400-1600 per month.

I have no problem working and I do but frankly to say that 1000 a month should be more than enough is not super realistic.

As far as students complaining about the money they get, I think its fair. Taking a look at what student assistance actually costs, its about 0.9% of the budget. Meanwhile things that definitely have a large element of middle class welfare take up more like 50% of the budget (age care and baby bonus and families with kiddies, I might add I find incomprehensible that you would have children with out a job).

Couple that with every man and his dog saying "I worked while I was an uni and they are a bunch of layabouts", well y'all can toss my salad.
11:50am 17/05/13 Permalink
Dazhel
Gold Coast, Queensland
6006 posts
We need to kill some old people.


This is why I can't fathom why governments don't get on board with voluntary euthanasia (even reluctantly).
The cynical reason is to save some cash, and the non-cynical reason of giving people some requested dignity. Old and terminally ill people that have no quality of life don't want to be a drain on their families or on the public purse.
12:03pm 17/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7728 posts
Are you getting the full rate for allowance/rental assistance Pete? I thought that it was about a grand a month.

On the if you had no job thing, at least from the experience of what I heard from a friend who was trying to get into the field which she spent a decade studying for (and thankfully eventually did), they don't let you just sit at home for long on centrelink, where it ends up with having to go in for something like 30 hours a week to do job applications, which is less fun and lower paying than an actual job. Even when I went on it briefly, it was oddly stressful for how constantly they were harassing me (and they said that I was the lowest risk type of job seeker they get, I was actually just on it to get some address work sorted out and apply for a business grant which annoyingly required me to do that first). It seems that the system is heavily geared towards preventing people from 'just not having a job and claim centrelink', making it half as annoying as a job which would pay better anyway.
12:13pm 17/05/13 Permalink
deadlyf
Queensland
3103 posts
This is why I can't fathom why governments don't get on board with voluntary euthanasia (even reluctantly).

It's because suicide is a sin and politicians are terrified of the ACL. It's pretty f*****g tragic that politicians care more about the opinions of a lobby group than the people suffering from terrible and debilitating ailments.
12:20pm 17/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7729 posts
There's an interesting quiz and answers here -

http://newmatilda.com/2013/05/17/chin-swanny-its-not-all-bad
12:22pm 17/05/13 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
885 posts
Well they don't dock it when I declare income so I assume that's the maximum. I gave them my details and they said you get X.

Getting setup down here I took a look and the price difference between living further out of the city doesn't drop enough to justify the additional public transport cost, which floats between 4 and 10 a day. Living where I do I can walk.

Anyway, I just get a bit annoyed because I work 7 days a week between Uni and my job, being told I should put up and shut up is a bitter pill to swallow.

I understand the job hunters paycheck is also something of a poison chalice. The point is that the money doubles when you are actually doing nothing.

As I pointed out when you put it all into context of the actual cost vs the genuine benefit society gains from having a well educated work force, spending a bit more than a bit less makes sense to me. In the scheme of things student financial assistance could be doubled and still cost f*** all.

We manage to spend the total student assistance budget by accident on loads of s***, so the whole lazy students robbin' us of our taxes just doesn't fly in my book. Never has.
12:32pm 17/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7730 posts
It might be worth checking out whether you're getting the maximum rate, you sound like I was early on. For two and a half years after I left home with nothing but a grand and a computer that I'd sunk my highschool business's s***** profits into, I thought that $60 a week was the normal centrelink rate, because that's what I was getting. I signed up to join the air force as a way out in my 3rd year, when centrelink mysteriously called and said that they just realised that I qualified for the full rate, but couldn't backpay etc (not that I cared, it basically saved me from having to drop out of uni over late compulsory union fees of all things, which just got more expensive after I'd forgotten about them).

TL;DR Definitely check it out, I'm fairly sure that it's meant to be something like $390 before rent assistance, which is about $85 (per fortnight). There's also lump sum payments these days I think, start of year expenses etc.
12:53pm 17/05/13 Permalink
Dazhel
Gold Coast, Queensland
6007 posts
It's because suicide is a sin and politicians are terrified of the ACL. It's pretty f*****g tragic that politicians care more about the opinions of a lobby group than the people suffering from terrible and debilitating ailments.


Aye, same as it ever was.
01:00pm 17/05/13 Permalink
Mephz
Brisbane, Queensland
1353 posts
Hope ya have top private health cover if liberal get in.
Say bye bye public hospitals.
01:12pm 17/05/13 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
22708 posts
Say bye bye public hospitals.
Got some sort of source for this? Taking away public health would be the craziest thing ever.
02:27pm 17/05/13 Permalink
thermite
Brisbane, Queensland
11209 posts
Babies are already dying because of Campbell Newman's cuts to health. They won't take it away, but you'd be stupid to rely on it.
02:53pm 17/05/13 Permalink
Eorl
Brisbane, Queensland
9248 posts
I thought the cuts to health were due to the big payroll screw up?
03:08pm 17/05/13 Permalink
ara
Sydney, New South Wales
3689 posts
I thought the cuts to health were due to the big payroll screw up?


Eorl Stop,

All problems are the result of the current government no matter what. Got it.

Just look at NSW transport problems. After 12 years of rubbish public transport under the last government, the leader of the opposition (who actually wasn't even a politician before the election that saw the majority of his party kicked out) asked why the current government hadn't fixed all the transport problems.

Rightly so i say! Rightly so!
04:43pm 17/05/13 Permalink
greazy
Brisbane, Queensland
5852 posts
Pretty sure most of the health jobs were in the path labs and not essential staff like doctors and nurses.
04:57pm 17/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19913 posts
Have a read of some of the Qld government's media releases. Although that is their spin obviously you may wish to also check the sources of their figures which are irrefutable. The Commonwealth government cut funding to Qld (and other states) for health retrospectively by changing the statistical method by which they calculate each state's population (and thus average demand for health care). So what's a state government meant to do? Keep on spending?

Trillion, one day you will have property and wealth of your own and appreciate not having a do-gooder government shaving off bits and pieces for their fancies of the day. I know it feels good getting free money that someone else paid for but how anyone can say that is "fair" is beyond me.
05:33pm 17/05/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
36997 posts
That whole 'aging population' thing is a real pain.
...as long as we don't do anything idiotic, like rewarding people for pumping out babies, it is a relatively short term problem that will inevitably vanish once the baby-spammed generation die off.
05:40pm 17/05/13 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
10221 posts
Id like to know how this Disability Scheme is going to be paid for.
Id like both Partys to ...

http://vivavisibilityblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/show-me-the-money.jpg
05:51pm 17/05/13 Permalink
BlueWolf
Brisbane, Queensland
79 posts
Unfortunately that is wrong greazy, on my recent visit to Hospital there were many nurses on their last weeks/not sure how long they would have their job for.

They are closing wards at various hospitals, if you hear anything else its all smoke and mirrors. The ward I stayed in is now closed (some nurses in other wards, but many gone). That is without mentioning the student nurses who have next to no hope of finding work now that they are cutting not hiring.

Yet at the same time the system needs more nurses... it's stupid (most are working overtime/extra shifts). I am happy to pay more tax for Health Care (would like t se public cover so nobody needs private), other things though... not so much.
05:56pm 17/05/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13924 posts
...as long as we don't do anything idiotic, like rewarding people for pumping out babies, it is a relatively short term problem that will inevitably vanish once the baby-spammed generation die off.

Yeh because a shrinking population (or one propped up with massive migration) poses no problems at all!
06:18pm 17/05/13 Permalink
reload!
Brisbane, Queensland
7330 posts
ja most economists would disagree with you there, trog.
I suppose to the individual it depends on what you consider short term too.
06:27pm 17/05/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
36998 posts
Yeh because a shrinking population (or one propped up with massive migration) poses no problems at all!
Last time we hashed out this boring discussion I thought your arguments basically all were around "oh if we don't have a continually larger population they won't be able to support the rest of the population", which even a halfwit like me knows is mathematically unsustainable.

What else is wrong with a shrinking population "propped up" (nice negative term there btw) by careful selective immigration of the best talent the world has to offer (see, I can do it too!)
06:28pm 17/05/13 Permalink
HurricaneJim
Brisbane, Queensland
1432 posts
There is only one solution that neither side wants to touch.

Increase mining royalties from 4% to 45%. All problems solved and never ever have a deficit.
07:07pm 17/05/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
36999 posts
Increase mining royalties from 4% to 45%. All problems solved and never ever have a deficit.
Pfft, what would that ever accomplish

For those too lazy to click:
The Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund is the largest in the world, currently around $660 billion has been siphoned off by 78 per cent tax on revenue, invested in 7,000 companies around the world, including in Australia.
Of course Norway is a socialist hellhole though
07:21pm 17/05/13 Permalink
Viper119
UK
2012 posts
Norway's got it pretty damn right in a lot of areas, we could do very well rinsing some of their policies. Same goes for the other Scando countries.

I like how everyone on here has been arguing for so long they all know each others standard argument and viewpoints already! #qgllove
09:01pm 17/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19914 posts
By all means increase the royalties tax. Just remember every tax impacts on the viability of a project and each new impost increases the likelihood the project (and jobs) will be shelved. A high royalty environment means a lot if the resources will just stay in the ground.

it's amazing how taxes are seen as something that improves the chances of successful business. How does business get a return on investment when 78% of their revenue is taken in tax.

Labor has not contributed a red cent to the future fund and their solution to extracting more money from miners was an absolute failure. They fail even at taxing, and that's their strongest talent!

edit: a few footnotes for the Fabians because the article trog referenced is misleading. Norway's petroleum sector is dominated by state owned producers so there is limited private investment and High regulation. Furthermore the Norwegian economy is highly dependent on its petroleum revenue so it supplants its budget by petroleum revenue and saves the rest of it. Norway can tax its petroleum producers at high rates BECAUSE THEY ARE STATE OWNED.
09:47pm 17/05/13 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
886 posts
Profit Infi Profit.

If they can get oil out of the ground profitably with a 78% tax in the artic circle then Gina can take a bigger hit me thinks.

*edit* sorry it is revenue, but apparently you can still find someone who will get the s*** out the ground for that return.
09:57pm 17/05/13 Permalink
deadlyf
Queensland
3106 posts
Furthermore the Norwegian economy is highly dependent on its petroleum revenue so it supplants its budget by petroleum revenue and saves the rest of it. Norway can tax its petroleum producers at high rates BECAUSE THEY ARE STATE OWNED.
Sounds to me like you are supporting the idea of kicking out the fat cat mining leaches and creating STATE OWNED enterprises to get out the coal so the money stays with the country like it should.

I mean it obviously works in Norway.
11:51pm 17/05/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13927 posts
Last time we hashed out this boring discussion I thought your arguments basically all were around "oh if we don't have a continually larger population they won't be able to support the rest of the population", which even a halfwit like me knows is mathematically unsustainable.

It appears you are a halfwit because you got my argument entirely and utterly wrong. For an apparently boring discussion you sure do bring it up a lot!
12:18am 18/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19917 posts
I mean it obviously works in Norway.


F*** no, I don't want the state near anything that's not essential services. Like we need more public servants lol. We're just hacking back the current lot.
12:31am 18/05/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13928 posts
Also, lol at the falling dollar.

The ALP can't get a break, the Coalition will quite possibly harness the 'f*** Gillard' sentiment into the September election, implement the ALP budget cuts and ride a wave of surplus into 2015 and beyond without doing a goddamn thing.
12:34am 18/05/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
37002 posts
F*** no, I don't want the state near anything that's not essential services. Like we need more public servants lol. We're just hacking back the current lot.
I tend to agree, but looking at Norway's $600b future fund derived largely from their natural resources, derived largely (?) from their natural resources...

Any mining activities ultimately are going to get seriously smashed by the government, whether it is selling mining rights or taxation or whatever. The only question is by how much - on the capitalist hand I think the government should sell or lease those rights on reasonable terms and take some cut like they do with every business. But on the other hand I like the idea of the mineral wealth of our country being exploited in a way that is ultimately and mostly beneficial to all citizens of the state - so I am not terrified by the idea of massive mining taxes or significantly state-owned mines.
09:35am 18/05/13 Permalink
thermite
Brisbane, Queensland
11212 posts
Slightly related
Some researcher reckons we should replace medicare with a superannuation type scheme where you save for your own health
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/health-costs/4681906

seems like there are plot holes but I'll listen to the audio
09:56am 18/05/13 Permalink
paveway
Brisbane, Queensland
18132 posts
I'm in hospital right now and i've overheard heaps of talk between nurses talking about what they're going to do and s***. It is definitely beyond admin staff etc
10:33am 18/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7731 posts
the Coalition will quite possibly harness the 'f*** Gillard' sentiment into the September election, implement the ALP budget cuts and ride a wave of surplus into 2015 and beyond without doing a goddamn thing.

This worries me, only because of the levels of smug inaccuracy that the rhetoric will reach afterwards, which would be unbearable to have to hear. (Libs being the responsible heroes of 'surpluses')
10:33am 18/05/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13929 posts
Slightly relatedSome researcher reckons we should replace medicare with a superannuation type scheme where you save for your own healthhttp://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/health-costs/4681906seems like there are plot holes but I'll listen to the audio

There are huge plot holes, notably being that nobody but the very rich could save enough to cover treatment for s*** like cancer.

Medicare is fine, leave it the f*** alone imo.
02:10pm 18/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19918 posts
There are huge plot holes, notably being that nobody but the very rich could save enough to cover treatment for s*** like cancerretirement.


Does a 20+ year retirement cost more than cancer treatment? Just sayin'
03:32pm 18/05/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13930 posts
Does a 20+ year retirement cost more than cancer treatment? Just sayin'

Retirement comes at the end of your life. Cancer isn't so considerate.

How would mav have paid for his treatment? Kids with leukaemia? My MS treatment would already have exhausted my super savings 3x over, and I'm still working.

Just sayin.
03:56pm 18/05/13 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
22711 posts
Does a 20+ year retirement cost more than cancer treatment? Just sayin'
hahahahahaha
05:07pm 18/05/13 Permalink
HurricaneJim
Brisbane, Queensland
1433 posts
1. Only seven of the 34 OECD countries (wealthy, developed democracies) have triple A credit rating and positive outlooks with all three major credit rating agencies.

They are Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.

Only one has the distinction of interest rates in the optimum range between 1.6 per cent and 5 per cent. Only one has government borrowings as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) below 28 per cent. Only one has taxation as a percentage of GDP below 28 per cent. And only one has an economy growing more than 3 per cent per year. The same one.

Which nation?

(a) Canada. Powering ahead.
(b) Switzerland. Alps, clocks and impeccable financial credentials.
(c) Australia. World’s best treasurer?
(d) Norway. Flying under the radar?
(e) None of the above. Impossible during the worst downturn since the Great Depression.

2. Australia’s unemployment level is one of the lowest in the developed world, at less than half the rate in the Euro Area.

It is also one of the most stable – despite global upheavals.

Australia’s jobless rate has fluctuated within the narrow band 4.9 per cent to 5.8 per cent for the last?

(a) 4 months
(b) 14 months
(c) 24 months
(d) 40 months

3. There have been two periods of disastrous "fiscal profligacy" in Australia’s history. That’s according to an International Monetary Fund study by Harvard economist Paolo Mauro and others, published in January.

Those two periods were?

(a) during the Hughes government and the McMahon government
(b) during the Chifley government and the Whitlam government
(c) both during John Howard’s government
(d) during the Whitlam government and the Rudd government

4. According to Barry Jones, Canada fared second best in the world through the global financial crisis. Australia fared best.

On how many of these 20 indicators are Canadians now better placed than Australians?

1. economic growth
2. gross national income per person
3. unemployment
4. debt as a percentage of GDP
5. balance of trade now
6. balance of trade recent history
7. international credit rating
8. income tax rates
9. indirect tax rates
10. interest rates
11. productivity
12. household savings
13. retail sales growth rate
14. superannuation
15. economic freedom
16. government 10 year bond rate
17. value of the local currency relative to other currencies
18. industrial production growth
19. home ownership
20. overall quality of life

(a) only half — 10 of the 20
(b) five
(c) one
(d) none

5. Former treasurer Peter Costello expressed anxiety in April about “a lot of uncertainty at the moment about foreign investment rules and that is creating a lot of worries in the minds of potential investors”.

He said the mining tax and “tinkering with superannuation” were the main cause of that uncertainty.

Since Costello left the job in 2007, has net international investment in Australia?

(a) stayed at the same level at about $615.5 billion
(b) dropped 4.13 per cent to $590 billion
(c) increased 4.13 per cent to $641 billion
(d) increased 41.3 per cent to $870 billion

Bonus point: Just in the last quarter – now the mining tax is in place – was there a $6.2 billion increase or decrease in foreign investment? Yes

6. The Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has just released figures on taxation around the world.

Which of the following is true for Australia?

(a) total taxes on wages in Australia are among the lowest in the developed world, with only five small countries taking less
(b) almost all households are paying less in tax now than they were during the Howard government years
(c) the tax cuts introduced by the Rudd Government between 2008 and 2010, along with the Gillard Government’s carbon tax reforms, have lowered average tax rates by 3.6 per cent
(d) the biggest tax breaks have gone to the lowest paid
(e) all of the above

7. The Liberal Party website condemns the Gillard government because Australians are now sourcing products more cheaply overseas, thanks to the high Aussie dollar.

A media release headed "Labor hypocrisy on local content as jobs sent overseas" notes that manufacturing jobs have declined since 2007.

In how many of these 13 sectors – which the release ignores – have job numbers risen since 2007:

1. mining
2. electricity, gas, water and waste services
3. construction
4. wholesale trade
5. accommodation and food services
6. transport, postal and warehousing
7. financial and insurance services
8. professional, scientific and technical services
9. administrative and support services
10. public administration and safety
11. education and training
12. health care and social assistance
13. arts and recreation services

(a) six
(b) eight
(c) 10
(d) all 13

Bonus question (on hypocrisy): Over the 11 years of the Howard government (before the GFC), was there an increase or a decrease in manufacturing jobs?

Durning the Howard years manufacturing jobs decreased.

8. In one devastating assault on the universities in post-war history, an Australian treasurer announced:

1. cuts of 5 per cent of all funding previously budgeted
2. introduction of full fee-paying places for undergraduates
3. compulsory staff redundancies
4. dramatic increases in HECS payments, and
5. reducing the starting salary for repayments to $21,000 a year.

The magnitude of the cuts has not been matched before or since.

The treasurer was:

(a) John Howard
(b) Paul Keating
(c) Peter Costello
(d) Wayne Swan

9. Unemployment in Australia rose during March 2013, but not evenly across the nation.

The increase was significantly greater in two states or territories. Which ones?

(a) Queensland and Victoria
(b) The Northern Territory and the ACT
(c) New South Wales and Queensland
(d) Tasmania and South Australia

10. The Australian newspaper attacked the Gillard Government in April with another scare campaign on government borrowings.

“Australian governments are facing a budget black hole so large that politically painful cuts to growth in public health and education spending are all but unavoidable ...”

Australia’s borrowings today, as a percentage of GDP, are:

(a) three times as high as in the Great Depression
(b) twice as high
(c) the same
(d) half the size
(e) only one third the size

11. Government debt figures for 2012 for most of the world are now available.

How many of these 11 robust, developed economies achieved lower debt (as a percentage of GDP) in 2012 compared with 2011:

Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, South Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Taiwan and the United Kingdom:

(a) all 11
(b) six
(c) two
(d) one, Australia

Other countries to do so, not on the list, are Canada, Mexico, and New Zealand

12. Since the Labor Government has managed Australia’s economy, taxes on personal income have dropped to the third lowest among wealthy developed countries.

In other words, of the 34 member nations of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development only two nations have lower rates of income tax than Australia has now. This includes personal income tax, social security taxes and payroll tax as a per cent of GDP.

Which are the other two countries?

(a) Singapore and Switzerland
(b) Norway and Canada
(c) South Korea and Turkey
(d) The USA and Mexico
05:56pm 18/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7732 posts
(b) almost all households are paying less in tax now than they were during the Howard government years
(c) the tax cuts introduced by the Rudd Government between 2008 and 2010, along with the Gillard Government’s carbon tax reforms, have lowered average tax rates by 3.6 per cent

I think that these are the most important take aways, when people like infi talk in rhetoric about how labor are the large taxers, which doesn't seem to match reality.

(While we see moves like this by the queensland LNP, infi's party http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/new-flood-tax-planned-for-queensland/story-e6freono-1226644935731 )
06:06pm 18/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19919 posts
We are paying less tax now because of the tax cuts INTRODUCED by Howard. When he lost in 2007 they were already announced and factored into the forward estimates. Rudd had no option but to keep them. But nice try Nerfy... Labor would never suggest tax cuts lol. They are big taxing big spending social program obsessed, and definitely cannot balance their books.
10:10pm 18/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19920 posts
Retirement comes at the end of your life. Cancer isn't so considerate.


if a family is saving for their personal health all times, which is pretty much what Private health insurance is, then there would always be plenty of cash there to deal with all but the most expensive treatments.

unless you are a ward of the state you have a family.

Secondly, to suggest that all people should get access to even the most expensive treatments is a blatant falsehood. There are waiting queues for expensive procedures because unlimited access would send the country broke. If one wants to protect their interests guaranteed, they should have a personal solution.

dammnit why do I keep coming back to personal responsibility.
10:16pm 18/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7733 posts
That's what I pointed out in the previous thread, but your claim that people are struggling under high taxes under labor, when they have been lower under labor than under Howard's entire term (which also explains much of the lack of surplus, where it's just as much about changes in revenue as it is spending), is pretty much flat out wrong. Taxes have been lower (and, Howard did not introduce the upcoming tax cuts).

Labor would never suggest tax cuts lol.

Well, Labor did http://www.futuretax.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=FactSheets/personal_tax_system.htm . And the tax-and-handout libs are the ones wanting to move it back.

Hell, they wanted to cut it even further: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/beware-of-taxes-to-fix-behaviour-warns-gary-banks/story-fnab4up0-1226159495647
10:31pm 18/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19923 posts
Well, they did. The tax free threshold on all income was moved from $6,000 to $16,000, and the libs want to move it back.


when you do the numbers, this does not reduce the tax impost on any taxpayers due to the low income tax offset which existed previously and has been abolished. all the change in tax free threshold achieved was a reduction in the number of people required to lodge a tax-return. it was a good idea nonetheless.

the new "tax cuts" introduced by labor are compensation for the increased costs associated with the Carbon Tax. They fooled you though Nerfy...
10:34pm 18/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7734 posts
Except they suggested higher, and intend to go higher, and you said that they didn't. You lied. Next year the tax free threshold is expected to be $18,200.
http://www.futuretax.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=FactSheets/personal_tax_system.htm

the new "tax cuts" introduced by labor are compensation for the increased costs associated with the Carbon Tax.

Yes, I've had to explain this to you lot every time that you've whinged that Labor is taxing carbon as part of the 'socialist science conspiracy' to make the government richer, when it's actually being reimbursed to the consumer. I'm glad that you're finally admitting the truth on that one.
10:38pm 18/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19925 posts
Those tax cuts and compensations are a once off for a Carbon Tax that could possibly fluctuate and cause all sorts of consequential costs imposts. Furthermore, not all taxpayer' 'received the compensation so those taxpayers missed out have in fact had their tax impost increased. The tax cuts increased by Howard (and Costello) were magnificent, they broadened the flat tax concept by ensuring 80% of the taxpayers would pay no more than 30% tax and extended the thresholds for the higher tax rates to realistic income levels.

Before Howard got involved Keating and Hawke had been insidiously relying on bracket creep for a decade to inflate their tax revenue.

Swan received a raft of recommendations for simplifying income tax in the Henry Tax review and he implemented none of them.
10:48pm 18/05/13 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
22713 posts
dammnit why do I keep coming back to personal responsibility.
I really don't know, because whenever you do I think of the time you blamed the government for your poor property management and said they were the reason for the vacant properties you own.

Health care can easily send people who aren't super rich completely broke. It's not just cancer either. It's things like car accidents that can make people paraplegics, or cause serious brain injuries. It's numerous things that could ruin people's entire lives which I could just bullet point here.

Being against public health care amongst other things is why you are a bit of a laughing stock infi.
10:49pm 18/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19926 posts
Never said I was against public health care, I am against people expecting every single problem of theirs to be solved by their government. Fpot's constant seagulling into threads and misquoting people is why he is a laughing stock.

Nerfy that document you linked to explicitly states that the changes in tax free thresholds are being offset by removal of various other concessions low income people received so that tax liability does not change.
10:54pm 18/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7735 posts
No it doesn't, it says that the low income tax offset is being reduced, not removed, meaning that bringing the tax free threshold up to the old effective threshold, along with a reduced low income offset, means a tax free threshold $4000 higher than before ($20,542).

All taxpayers below $80,000 receive a tax cut from 1 July 2012, with most getting a cut of at least $300. This means around 60 per cent of all taxpayers will receive a tax cut of at least $300 and no one will be required to pay more income tax.

In 2015-16, the tax free threshold will increase by a further $1,200 to $19,400 so that those earning up to $68,000 will receive a tax cut of around $385 per year from 2015-16 compared to 2011-12.


Afaik they're not considering that last part any more, due to the fall in revenue, but your claim that Labor would never propose a tax cut is just flat out political malarky.

Do you admit that the tax cuts which came in after Howard's term substantially reduced the revenue which the government had to pay its obligations with, and are a large part of why Howard was able to maintain a surplus in boom times, when the previous two governments have not been able to in global recession? (though came within a hairline of balancing it this year, with lower tax rates and no asset sales at that).
11:10pm 18/05/13 Permalink
Viper119
UK
2014 posts
What's better? A state-owned 600bn futures fund for ongoing wealth for the country, or all the natural resources stripped out and sold to foreign investors for one-off wealth (to be squandered on giving Spook new TV's!?)? Norway model still looks better.
11:18pm 18/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19928 posts
Do you admit that the tax cuts which came in after Howard's term substantially reduced the revenue which the government had to pay its obligations


i do accept that in 2008 and 2009 where real income fell, but in 2012 with an increase of 7.5% in income there is no excuse. Show a bit of restraint - deferring social spending (especially new programs) is a great idea. it's not to say it won't be done in 5 or 10 years but not right now. And anyone who suggests every federal public servant is essential must be high as a kite. Thousands of public servants in Canberra not attending to a single patient or student.... i went to meet some boffins in February this year and your mind would spin if you saw the hordes of very highly paid assistant secretaries milling around the food courts with their lanyards on.

Furthermore just as Rudd was able to wheel cash out instantly he could also have easily tapped the brakes and kept the budget in balance too.
11:56pm 18/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7736 posts
And anyone who suggests every federal public servant is essential must be high as a kite.

I sure as hell don't, from the stories I've heard from people who work there, tons of them are absolutely useless. (Though I don't support blind cuts. There were also stories of queensland cuts leaving teams which actually were efficient unable to complete their near-completed multi year projects and sitting idle)
12:22am 19/05/13 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
10226 posts
02:24am 19/05/13 Permalink
SheerObesity
Melbourne, Victoria
222 posts
Good news, considering the greens are an extremist party
02:47am 19/05/13 Permalink
carson
Gippsland, Victoria
1907 posts
Never said I was against public health care, I am against people expecting every single problem of theirs to be solved by their government.

You do realise that those of us who rely on public healthcare do so because we can't afford private health care. I think you're a bit delusional if you think that people who rely on public healthcare do so because they expect the government to fix all their problems and do so because of a sense of entitlement.

if a family is saving for their personal health all times, which is pretty much what Private health insurance is, then there would always be plenty of cash there to deal with all but the most expensive treatments.

That's all well and good if you have extra money to save for such stuff. If you are living paycheck to paycheck there is no such chance.

We are lucky enough to live in a country where people who are less fortunate or come from families without much money (such as myself, my mum was a single mum who worked her arse off in s***** jobs and we never had much money) wont be sent bankrupt because of accidents of falling ill. I just don't understand why you think that people who are less off and are helped by the government are somehow free loaders who just need to stop depending on the government. It's not that simple.
09:02am 19/05/13 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
10227 posts
Glenn Lazarus joins the Palmy Army

http://www.couriermail.com.au/federal-election/glenn-lazarus-was-seduced-to-join-palmers-united-party-by-one-blind-dinner-date-with-clive-palmer/story-fnho52jo-1226645976105

Apparantly Katters Party is in trouble.
Most of the top echelon have resigned.
Its likely they will join the 'Palmy Army' too.

Palmy Army ROFL
11:23am 19/05/13 Permalink
paveway
Brisbane, Queensland
18136 posts
Parmigiana Army or what luls
12:13pm 19/05/13 Permalink
Spook
Brisbane, Queensland
35720 posts
big clive has money to burn
12:43pm 19/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19929 posts
Doesn't have a single policy. Sounds like a great party.
02:21pm 19/05/13 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
10230 posts
http://palmerunited.com/policies/

Palmer United Party stands for and is committed in its efforts and vision to carry out the following functions:

•Party Officials should not be Lobbyists, thereby taking a strong position on Paid Political Lobbyists saving tax payers dollars and introducing Fair Policies

•Abolish Carbon Tax

•Revising the current Australian Governments Refugee Policy to ensure Australia is protected and refugees are given opportunities for a better future and lifestyle

•Creating Mineral Wealth to continuously contribute to the welfare of the Australian community. This will be achieved by utilising mineral resources from Queensland and Western Australia, and incentives from the Commonwealth of Australia to establish downstream processing in the States of Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia ; and exporting products at a higher dollar value, thereby creating more revenue , jobs, tax and more facilities.

•Establishing a System where people create wealth in various parts of the country and for that wealth should flow back to the Community. For example, if the region creates wealth it should go back to the community. This way we develop the whole country and not just Sydney and Melbourne, but we develop right across Australia where the wealth is.

04:34pm 19/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19930 posts
They are not policies, they are platitudes.
06:02pm 19/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7737 posts
I agree with bff infi.
06:11pm 19/05/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13933 posts
it's not to say it won't be done in 5 or 10 years but not right now.

Are we talking abut the NDIS there with those 'social programs'?

5 or 10 years is a long time to people deeply in need just to make the numbers look good faster. It can be done now, so it should.
08:56pm 19/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19938 posts
Are we talking abut the NDIS there with those 'social programs'?


take your pick...
09:02pm 19/05/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13934 posts
That doesn't seem to be an answer to the question.
07:42am 20/05/13 Permalink
sLaps_Forehead
Brisbane, Queensland
6361 posts
Remember to throw a vote behind the Sustainable Population Party.

I know they make too much sense to have a chance in the retard s*** fight that is aussie politics but it's better than being forced to donkey vote.
08:30am 20/05/13 Permalink
HurricaneJim
Brisbane, Queensland
1434 posts
Abbott budget reply a series of stumbles

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4700796.html
04:02pm 20/05/13 Permalink
greazy
Brisbane, Queensland
5853 posts
Nice opinion peace there.

Remember to throw a vote behind the Sustainable Population Party.

I know they make too much sense to have a chance in the retard s*** fight that is aussie politics but it's better than being forced to donkey vote.

Do you mean Stable Population Party? Kinda funny you dont even know the proper name.
04:39pm 20/05/13 Permalink
Dazhel
Gold Coast, Queensland
6016 posts
Do you mean Stable Population Party? Kinda funny you dont even know the proper name.

No, those guys left around the same time as the Popular Sustainable People's Population Party.
Splitters.
05:19pm 20/05/13 Permalink
HurricaneJim
Brisbane, Queensland
1435 posts
No, those guys left around the same time as the Popular Sustainable People's Population Party.Splitters.


I thought that was the Peoples Popular Sustainable Population Peoples Party.......a faction of the LNP Lord Howe Is.
05:29pm 20/05/13 Permalink
Spook
Brisbane, Queensland
35737 posts
was interesting that i did a market survey group last nite on people who voted labor previously but arent sure who they are going to vote for this time.

every single member in the group said that they wanted a change, but were severely concerned about tony abbott being the leader of the liberals (several said they thought the liberals will depose him after they win the election)

it was also interesting that we all pretty much agreed that malcolm turnbull would be a much more attractive leader.

haha, i said that tony was labors best chance of winning and we all laughed (and agreed)
06:24am 22/05/13 Permalink
taggs
6159 posts
Non-Liberal voters prefer Turnbull to Abbott? Since when, Spook??!?!?!
06:35am 22/05/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
37010 posts
I know they make too much sense to have a chance in the retard s*** fight that is aussie politics but it's better than being forced to donkey vote.
Don't forget the Pirate Party and the Sex Party!
09:11am 22/05/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13941 posts
Why won't tony allow a conscience vote on marriage equality?

What's the motivation, its a social issue?
09:14am 22/05/13 Permalink
Dazhel
Gold Coast, Queensland
6021 posts
Don't forget the Pirate Party and the Sex Party!

Those two are tiny though, to become a stronger political force they should merge together to form the Pirate Sex Party.
10:19am 22/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19948 posts
Coalition is $1.05
ALP $8.00 today.

I think it wil be close. LOL
12:09pm 22/05/13 Permalink
Dazhel
Gold Coast, Queensland
6025 posts
At those odds Swan just needs to have a ~2.5 billion dollar punt on the ALP and then come out with an election slogan: 'Vote for us and the deficit problem disappears'
01:10pm 22/05/13 Permalink
Spook
Brisbane, Queensland
35740 posts
an interesting stat i heard last nite:

australias deficit is the equivalent to having a $12000 mortgage on a $100000 salary.
01:57pm 22/05/13 Permalink
SheerObesity
Melbourne, Victoria
230 posts
Atleast a mortgage is doing something productive(You have bought a house)

The governments debt is like borrowing $12000 on a $100000 salary to put into the pokies. Ok you can afford it, but it's an absolute waste.
01:59pm 22/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19949 posts
australias deficit is the equivalent to having a $12000 mortgage on a $100000 salary.


This is the kind of financially illiterate rubbish I expect to hear from Wayne Swan when he is talking to schoolkids.

If the Country has a salary of $100,000 then it is spending $120,000 on living costs. So how does it pay its mortgage?

WOW.... mind = blown huh. Typical Labor rot about how money is unlimited and we can just keep putting it on credit. She'll be right mate...
02:10pm 22/05/13 Permalink
thermite
Brisbane, Queensland
11226 posts
Money kind of is unlimited, since it's a made up thing invented by the Government. The idea of unlimited money can be hard to understand from the perspective of someone to whom money is a thing to work towards obtaining. The concept that the Government cannot afford something doesn't make sense. If the Government wants a thing, it has the power to posses that thing.
02:25pm 22/05/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7743 posts
The governments debt is like borrowing $12000 on a $100000 salary to put into the pokies.

Are you talking about the stimulus, which seems to be where the increase came from on previous charts? (revenues dropped with the gfc and howard's tax cuts too). How much debt do you think that the government would be in had they harshly cut spending during recession, and not stimulated the economy, possibly leading to a cascading reduction of revenue? From what I've seen, most informed analysis seems to come to the conclusion that they did the most optimal of things.
02:28pm 22/05/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19950 posts
If the Government wants a thing, it has the power to posses that thing.


except for public confidence.... Which money relies on.
02:49pm 22/05/13 Permalink
taggs
6160 posts
Money kind of is unlimited, since it's a made up thing invented by the Government. The idea of unlimited money can be hard to understand from the perspective of someone to whom money is a thing to work towards obtaining. The concept that the Government cannot afford something doesn't make sense. If the Government wants a thing, it has the power to posses that thing.


The thermite school of monetary economics is very interesting. Please continue to enlighten us.
02:59pm 22/05/13 Permalink
system
Internet
--
02:59pm 22/05/13 Permalink
AusGamers Forums
Show: per page
1
This thread is archived and cannot be replied to.