Juliar betrays australia, destroys our economic future (7 Viewers)

[cheese_cheese]

Right? And it's not JUST 46.5c in every dollar, it's $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000
source: http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.aspx?doc=/content/12333.htm

Seriously, fuck that. That is so much money. you earn >180k, you're taxed 54,550 leaving you with only 125,450 before you're even taxed x amount in every dollar over 180k. Then there's mortgages, medicare, health fund, all that shit that you still have to pay. Fuck that.
I'm going to vote for the most capitalist party there is next election and when I have a job in statistics/finance i'm going to find a way to evade being taxed. Phony deductions, phony charaties, off shore accounts, you name it, I will have it.

I hope you are being sarcastic.

125K is tonnes of money and far more than most average Australian families earn. Tax rates need to be far higher and more serve for the elite few earning > 150K in particular.

You don't need to make up phony deductions to 'evade' most of your tax. Enough loopholes exist that it is currently possible. I.e. if I donate 1K to charity through the year, I can claim it all back on tax. While this costs me 1K during the year, I get it all back as a tax deduction and ultimately the government pays while the charity also benefits.

 

[cheese_cheese]

never mind the fact that you actually have to ~pay~ to use public transport.

Free public transport is still a long way off. Some of the prices on public transport is ridiculous though. No jounrey (<100 km) should be more than $2 on a train or bus.

also I remember citing this paper a while back which shows fees from vehicle registration in australia are more than enough to cover public roads expenditure, assuming zero government waste (yeah right)

So what are you trying to convey there actually?

 

[cheese_cheese]

as am I, its a sweet job bra, starting wage will be like 60,000 when i start. teachers get paid so much its ridiculous. plus job security from A being a public servant and B the pretty much inelastic demand there is from consumers for teachers

Teachers get paid hardly anything and should be paid a lot more.

Being a public servant isn't all that it is cracked up to be. Sure, the workload is easy although do you know how boring it is when you sit in an office for over 8 hours a day and only have to do 1 hours work (i.e. when you first get there). Do that enough times and you will struggle to kill the remaining 7.5 hours you have to stay in the office doing nothing (if you go home you don't get paid obviously).

 

[funkshen]

 

[Subhas Bose]

 

[funkshen]

giulia gillardo

 

[Subhas Bose]

political SATIRE

 

[Subhas Bose]

 

[kfnmpah]

I hope you are being sarcastic.

125K is tonnes of money and far more than most average Australian families earn. Tax rates need to be far higher and more serve for the elite few earning > 150K in particular.

You don't need to make up phony deductions to 'evade' most of your tax. Enough loopholes exist that it is currently possible. I.e. if I donate 1K to charity through the year, I can claim it all back on tax. While this costs me 1K during the year, I get it all back as a tax deduction and ultimately the government pays while the charity also benefits.

But the people who earn that much money obviously had to work for it. (at least a majority of them). All the finance bankers earning 250k+ didn't just start out that way. All the actuaries who are earning 250k+ didn't just start out that way. They had to work their way up, kiss some scotch drenched asses for 60+ hours a week for years.
How is it fair to take ~1/3 of someone's salary because they work hard and studied for a long time? Quite simply, it isn't.

If 'rich' people are taxed more, they're less likely to spend money. Who do you think are the people spending money and sustaining our economy?

case in point:

 

[cheese_cheese]

But the people who earn that much money obviously had to work for it. (at least a majority of them). All the finance bankers earning 250k+ didn't just start out that way. All the actuaries who are earning 250k+ didn't just start out that way. They had to work their way up, kiss some scotch drenched asses for 60+ hours a week for years.
How is it fair to take ~1/3 of someone's salary because they work hard and studied for a long time? Quite simply, it isn't.

If 'rich' people are taxed more, they're less likely to spend money. Who do you think are the people spending money and sustaining our economy?

case in point:

I don't doubt people earning lots of money work hard for it. Although working hard in a corporate office behind a nice plush desk is different to working hard as a motel cleaner or working hard as a diesel mechanic etc.

If you earn > 150K you should be taxed far higher. This would not affect most Australians as even most tertiary educated Australians do not earn 150K a year.

That letter in the image has a few good points although it still makes the author sound arrogant and pompous as if he thinks he could take every Americans job.

 

[peikoff]

If 'rich' people are taxed more, they're less likely to spend money. Who do you think are the people spending money and sustaining our economy?

Implying that rich people are the motor of the economy to the extent that they are the ones 'spending money sustaining our economy' is quite a Keynesian thing to say. But if you endorse Keynesianism, as I do, then you should recognise that higher taxation on the rich only mildly reduces their spending given the higher marginal propensity to save that the rich possess. And this tax can be used to shrink the deficit and stimulate further economic activity by having the government spend it or redistribute it to those low income earners more likely to spend it. After all, you believe that spending stimulates the economy, so lets tax and spend!!

 

[cheese_cheese]

Implying that rich people are the motor of the economy to the extent that they are the ones 'spending money sustaining our economy' is quite a Keynesian thing to say. But if you endorse Keynesianism, as I do, then you should recognise that higher taxation on the rich only mildly reduces their spending given the higher marginal propensity to save that the rich possess. And this tax can be used to shrink the deficit and stimulate further economic activity by having the government spend it or redistribute it to those low income earners more likely to spend it. After all, you believe that spending stimulates the economy, so lets tax and spend!!

While I do not endorse Keynesian economics (its crap), this guy has a point.

 

[Azure]

I don't doubt people earning lots of money work hard for it. Although working hard in a corporate office behind a nice plush desk is different to working hard as a motel cleaner or working hard as a diesel mechanic etc.

If you earn > 150K you should be taxed far higher. This would not affect most Australians as even most tertiary educated Australians do not earn 150K a year.

That letter in the image has a few good points although it still makes the author sound arrogant and pompous as if he thinks he could take every Americans job.

Why should they be taxed more higher? Cool, this bloke is making the most of capitalism so lets just punish him for it. You know you're pretty much on the road to communism.

Here's an idea. Instead of paying more taxes, how about a little more transparency and accountability and a little less waste from government. Big government is so obviously the root of so many of modern societies problems and common sense would indicate that more taxes eventually results more government. I can't see how you would support the occupy movement while simultaneously supporting big government (since the corporations you despise are only able to get away with what they're doing due to government)

 

[peikoff]

You know you're pretty much on the road to communism.

Hyperbolic crap. To think that raising taxes on the wealthiest individuals is even commensurate to true, unbridled communism, is to have a pretty high view of communism.

 

[Azure]

Hyperbolic crap. To think that raising taxes on the wealthiest individuals is even commensurate to true, unbridled communism, is to have a pretty high view of communism.

Yes bravo you detected the hyperbole.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Implying that rich people are the motor of the economy to the extent that they are the ones 'spending money sustaining our economy' is quite a Keynesian thing to say. But if you endorse Keynesianism, as I do, then you should recognise that higher taxation on the rich only mildly reduces their spending given the higher marginal propensity to save that the rich possess. And this tax can be used to shrink the deficit and stimulate further economic activity by having the government spend it or redistribute it to those low income earners more likely to spend it. After all, you believe that spending stimulates the economy, so lets tax and spend!!

so were gonna just ignore that stagflation occurred then ey?

 

[peikoff]

so were gonna just ignore that stagflation occurred then ey?

???
Do you mean ignore that it ever occurred? or ignore that it is happening now or has happened recently?

If the latter than I can ignore it because we are not experiencing stagflation and if the former I don't need to ignore it. Keynesianism can handle stagflation perfectly well.

 

[cheese_cheese]

Stagflation is not real. It is simply a theoretical concept by economist researchers that is yet to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

???
Do you mean ignore that it ever occurred? or ignore that it is happening now or has happened recently?

If the latter than I can ignore it because we are not experiencing stagflation and if the former I don't need to ignore it. Keynesianism can handle stagflation perfectly well.

Stagflation is not real. It is simply a theoretical concept by economist researchers that is yet to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

and the award for the best trolling goes tooooo!!!

 

[peikoff]

Stagflation is not real. It is simply a theoretical concept by economist researchers that is yet to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

1974-early 80's experienced rampant stagflation. It even overthrew all economic thinking up to that point. We had to wait for Milton Friedman to come to the rescue and explain it.