Azamakumar
bannèd
toldlolsXcGuRl69aU said:hahahahahaha owned.
toldlolsXcGuRl69aU said:hahahahahaha owned.
the laffer curve is retardedblue_chameleon said:Not until 5 minutes ago, no.
I don't do economics, but it seems fairly common sense.
lolSipSip said:By your signature...I am very glad you are doing something like B.science and B.arts...at least you won't have that much effect on the economy...and if god have eyes...the luxury car tax will definitely not effect your family for at least your life.
You do realise that Rudd is pushing this tax through so hard because without it, there is suddenly a half a billion dollar hole in his budget...which isn't really that terrible since that I'm sure there is money reserved from all the budget surpluses left by the Liberal gov't.
It's pretty absurd how well the welfare payments are in Aust, considering that if you really don't want to work, you get almost 200 bucks a week...pretty decent if you're still living at home...how is that encouraging young people to work...there are obviously people who deserves and needs those payments, but I'm sure there are people who are reaping in the benefits when they don't need it.
As for Taxing more to invest in other things...Rudd stated that the road infrastructure can be improved...face it...if it hasn't improved in the last 20 years...what is Rudd gonna do in his 3 years of gov't to change that...barring the fact that the "inquiries" will prob take up half of his appointment.
And as for Rudd fighting for the working family, what does he know, if he goes broke, I'm sure his millionaire wife will support his living...
It's a graph with a peak in the middle. Amazing stuff really.jb_nc said:the laffer curve is retarded
Do not worry bout SipSip bro: He blames da govment for da interest rates dats holding bak our economy mang. Bloody Wayne Swan couldna run a running race wif preschoolers bro. Der are welfare bludgers everywhere mang! I can see dem from my mansion on da North Shore! Millions of dem!BackCountrySnow said:I'd be more worried if you were somehow involved with the running of the economy.
I'm not sure if this tax is that much more arbitrary than normal income taxes. I'm going to assume that those who buy luxury cars are those who can afford them, and hence are making the most money. Isn't this tax simply going about collecting it in a different environment?Enteebee said:I also agree with taxation on the same grounds. I think the country is overall more prosperous and free if we tax the rich and give to the poor. However, this particular tax is an easy tax grab to increase government revenue (while demonising one particular spending habit) that comes off as extremely arbitrary and unfair.
If you accept that people should be allowed to get rich, have discretionary money and spend it on whatever luxury good takes their fancy (within SOME limits obviously) then I don't see how you can support this tax. What is particularly wrong with wanting to spend your extra money on a better car instead of a yacht or big screen tvs?
The only reason I can think to actually add a new tax on cars in particular would be for their emissions... but it's not really the luxury new cars that are the greatest emitters.
There's no need to worry ourselves about such a solution because what should really be done is a tax on emissions. It makes sense to try and get people to buy lower emitting cars, not to encourage people to try and buy cheaper cars.I'm not too sure what the solution would be there
Not necessarily, cheap small cars can often have inefficient motors compared with a more expensive medium sized car making them greater emitters - especially when you consider the longevity of some of the cars. The point would be though that it would no longer be a tax that is about punishing the desire for one particular luxury good, but it would be about getting revenue while moving Australia towards a goal that many of us agree would be worthwhile (i.e. lower emitting vehicles).Nebuchanezzar said:Cheaper (newer) cars are generally smaller and lower emitters though, aren't they?
If luxury cars were mostly hybrids, electrics or whatever then I'd be totally opposed to any tax on them, btw.
What's a medium sized car with a high efficiency?Enteebee said:Not necessarily, cheap small cars can often have inefficient motors compared with a more expensive medium sized car making them greater emitters - especially when you consider the longevity of some of the cars. The point would be though that it would no longer be a tax that is about punishing the desire for one particular luxury good, but it would be about getting revenue while moving Australia towards a goal that many of us agree would be worthwhile (i.e. lower emitting vehicles).
haha...poor grammar yes...jb_nc said:lol
combining HSC economics knowledge with a twist of Liberal absurdity sprinkled with asian grammar = your posting skillz
yes well by "trading" you could be trading "goods" for money or trading your "labour" for money.SipSip said:HSC economics knowledge...in case you don't know...i'm currently working as a trader...i'm also in charged of a project with sponsoring youth programs, which is why i have kept this posting thing up.. (plus...it's pretty fun) ...anyway...i'm pretty certain i have more economic knowledge than a B.Science person....
BMW 5 series?? Audi A6....they have pretty efficient engines for their size...pretty sure they are over 58k too...jb_nc said:Camry's cost ~$30 k (after a quick google search), I was thinking more about cars over the $58 000 tax threshold.
What about the Corolla as an example?Enteebee said:Not necessarily, cheap small cars can often have inefficient motors compared with a more expensive medium sized car making them greater emitters - especially when you consider the longevity of some of the cars. The point would be though that it would no longer be a tax that is about punishing the desire for one particular luxury good, but it would be about getting revenue while moving Australia towards a goal that many of us agree would be worthwhile (i.e. lower emitting vehicles).
Trading foreign exchange and also derivatives products...where bank gives a certain limit for traders to purchase low and sell higher to make money...jb_nc said:yes well by "trading" you could be trading "goods" for money or trading your "labour" for money.
lol you also just admitted economics is not a science (it fits into the realm of bullshit pseudo-science just fyi)
Why honestly will I be in HSC still...if I finished my HSC in 2003...Nebuchanezzar said:Ellipses shouldn't be used that often. Please use your HSC Economics skills to make your posts more readable, so we can get to the juicy content within.
What about the Corolla as an example?
Pretty much. 1 litre of petrol burnt in a a car < $58k is still going to equal the same amount of carbon dioxide burnt in a car > $58k.zimmerman8k said:Also, this talk about specific cars and their prices and fuel efficiency is painful.
If you want to tax high emission vehicles, tax them based on emissions not price. Or better still, just increase the excise on fuels. Not saying we should or we shouldn't but its irrelevant. The tax is arbitrary and not the most effective way of achieving any of its purported benefits.
loland I doubt science will be as developed as it is today without the "bullshit" that you refer to as the economy...