The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.
- Thread starter johnny
- Start date
I think nanny state is a debatable subject here.
Gun laws might be restrictive but with good reason, smoking laws are the same. You need to weigh up the pros and the cons of these.
But there are definitely some things that are getting ridiculous. Some schools have banned cartwheels and handstands because they are dangerous. You can't play any contact sport in some schools.
There is nanny stating and then there is just common sense.
Gun laws, smoking laws, seat belt laws are all things that have been implemented and with good reason. People get caught up in personal freedom when we are relatively free here in Australia, when compared to extremist countries we have all the freedom in the world. The nanny state advocates for things that actually should be controlled is just because they have a stick up there ass about government control and freedom regardless of the benefits that come from controlling.
Many things should be controlled others shouldn't I agree that we are moving towards nanny states more and its not a good thing but somethings need to be controlled. I'm all for discussion on the matters but what grinds my gears is the people who are just set on having no government control in their lives and have no method of logic about their arguments. It just makes them sound paranoid and obsessed with having a free for all world.
Gun laws might be restrictive but with good reason, smoking laws are the same. You need to weigh up the pros and the cons of these.
But there are definitely some things that are getting ridiculous. Some schools have banned cartwheels and handstands because they are dangerous. You can't play any contact sport in some schools.
There is nanny stating and then there is just common sense.
Gun laws, smoking laws, seat belt laws are all things that have been implemented and with good reason. People get caught up in personal freedom when we are relatively free here in Australia, when compared to extremist countries we have all the freedom in the world. The nanny state advocates for things that actually should be controlled is just because they have a stick up there ass about government control and freedom regardless of the benefits that come from controlling.
Many things should be controlled others shouldn't I agree that we are moving towards nanny states more and its not a good thing but somethings need to be controlled. I'm all for discussion on the matters but what grinds my gears is the people who are just set on having no government control in their lives and have no method of logic about their arguments. It just makes them sound paranoid and obsessed with having a free for all world.
John U
MTB Precision
Yes. I agree with that. I forget some of the seriously stupid ones. Some schools have no contact flat out I have heard (although haven't verified this a believe it must be bullshit).
floody
Wheel size expert
And this is a problem why? You forgot to mention the more than generous direct payments, rebates and tax concessions said family will be receiving.
300-500k for a normal family house seems a little excessive really, and I don't know what the benefits are of having such expensive houses are.
Yes, and that costs the government more money that could be of better use elsewhere, which is another good argument for trying to reduce the cost of housing in Australia..
300-500k I guess you don't live in sydney.
after the housing can we debate tax
Anyone else things its BS that you work harder spend your time paying to go to uni or further eduction only to be taxed up the ass
I mean 37% for 80-180 k and 45% for 180+ its pathetic.
There should be blanket tax for everyone a set rate, if you work your ass off you get more money in your pocket you deserve it.
Or if they want to tax people more for higher paying jobs than the government should pay for our education or pay people to study, this would improve incentive to earn more and be higher educated as well. And by pay to study I don't mean study allowance where you still have to pay for uni I mean full expsnies paid to high education. Especially when they tax the balls off you afterwards they get their money back in full a thousand times over.
Anyone else things its BS that you work harder spend your time paying to go to uni or further eduction only to be taxed up the ass
I mean 37% for 80-180 k and 45% for 180+ its pathetic.
There should be blanket tax for everyone a set rate, if you work your ass off you get more money in your pocket you deserve it.
Or if they want to tax people more for higher paying jobs than the government should pay for our education or pay people to study, this would improve incentive to earn more and be higher educated as well. And by pay to study I don't mean study allowance where you still have to pay for uni I mean full expsnies paid to high education. Especially when they tax the balls off you afterwards they get their money back in full a thousand times over.
John U
MTB Precision
2 different issues. I think tax is OK, flat tax rate is a bad idea. Uni fees should be set at a price to not discourage people but to get rid of people doing a second or third or 4th degree at expense of someone else. I think the fees are far too high at the moment. HECS came in the year I started uni.
Taxes need to finance a shit load more stuff than tertiary education.
You don't have much to complain about if you're earning inexcess of $100k (unless you're trying to buy your first house). I agree uni fees are too expensive.
University educated people aren't the ones earning all the dough, it's the tradies who left school early, finished their trade qual, started earning money (while uni students were pissing it up and having a good time), did some tax dodging trading and renovated a couple primary residences, and were running their own business while the graduate was in their first year out of uni getting shit pay.
I took the uni route and don't regret it for a second. If I earn more I think I should pay more tax.
Last edited:
Nope, I was comparing Melbourne prices I think.
From what I see of Sydney house prices, for a 3-4 bedroom house not too far from the CBD Isn't it something like 600-800k?
Than if you want to live a long the harbour, lel, 1M> (Which is understandable, cause views)
scblack
Leucocholic
More expensive than that for Sydney. 3-4 bedroom places near me (Baulkham Hills, Castle Hill) 30-40kms from CBD start from ~$750k - and that's for an OLD place.
$1m is not much at all for Sydney - MANY suburbs average that price, nowhere near water or the harbour.
I knew it was expensive but I didn't realise it was that expensive..
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
If you are a good hustler and don't mind buying a piece of shit that rats won't even live in, 300k might buy you a house in Newcastle. Maybe...
Nothing like speculating, under supply, high demand, and disproportionate wealth distribution to keep the housing market strong. We wouldn't want to risk our superannuation industry (among others) getting flimsy! We need consumer confidence in the market system.
I'm going to buy one of homer simpson's amazing everything's OK alarms. Just so I can relax.
Matt H
Eats Squid
Income has diminishing marginal utility. The more money you have, the less "enjoyment" you'll get from earning an additional dollar. So progressive taxation allows a government to maximise revenue (for the provision of public goods), without substantially decreasing the utility of those being taxed.
floody
Wheel size expert
Fuck me, imagine having those kind of problems!
hahah Yeah i agree its not a major issue but its something that annoys me even though i don't earn 180k a year.
Still seems bloody tight to take almost 50% of someone money because they spend 10 years studying medicine and working there ass off.
Oh year sydney is stupid expensive. not sure what rent is like in other places but for a 3 bedroom home you are looking at
units about $450-500
town houses $500-550
house $600-750 rent a week.
just rough estimates for a basic/average housing nothing extravagant, of course you can up this a bit as you hit the CBD.
Its excessive.
Last edited:
wespelarno
Likes Dirt
It becomes challenging then trying to establish a level of tax that brings in enough money to run the country, and doesn't absolutely hammer low income earners. If you earn very little money, a flat $20,000 tax is a lot of money and seriously effects your day to day life. If you earn a lot of money, a flat $20,000 tax doesn't change a thing. Makes sense to tax high earners more and low earners less to try to maximize everybody's quality of life.
I do agree more help for students would be useful. It bugs the hell out of me that I study a stupid number of hours each week, and when I head off to work at 7:30am on a saturday, I can hear my neighbors in newly built government flats, sitting on their balcony finishing up their night of drinking, discussing the merits of choosing not to work.
Silverstreak
Likes Bikes
I think he meant a flat tax rate of say 30% of your income. That way, the more you earn, the more you pay but it doesn't discourage you from bettering yourself and chasing cash. Also it works conversely, the less you earn the less you pay.
wespelarno
Likes Dirt
Sorry-misread his post. That said, even with a flat rate the point still stands.
@30% tax rate:
Earning $40,000 per year (losing $12,000 to tax) leaves $28,000 take home
Earning $500,000 per year (losing $150,000 to tax) leaves $350,000 take home
In terms of quality of life, the person earning $40,000 feels the loss of that $12,000 a lot more than the person earning $500,000 feels the loss of $150,000.
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
Two thoughts on this:
- a flat rate would likely reduce the revenue available to the government.
- current system of scaled rates encourages higher income earners to invest their money and thus reduce tax. In theory this investment will go some way towards stimulating the economy and meeting community needs.
- a flat rate would likely reduce the revenue available to the government.
- current system of scaled rates encourages higher income earners to invest their money and thus reduce tax. In theory this investment will go some way towards stimulating the economy and meeting community needs.