# Handout Nation



## It's Snake Pliskin (18 October 2008)

Is Australia the handout nation of the universe?

Who thinks there are too many handouts for silly things as opposed to real things that are needed?

What are your thoughts?


----------



## Nashezz (18 October 2008)

Please explain... (include an accent if you need it)


----------



## Sean K (18 October 2008)

I'm not sure about other countries, but it does really surprise me that the Australian government(s) have continued left of centre policies to prop up those who are incapable. 

It weakens our society in the long run IMO.


----------



## chops_a_must (18 October 2008)

kennas said:


> I'm not sure about other countries, but it does really surprise me that the Australian government(s) have continued left of centre policies to prop up those who are incapable.
> 
> It weakens our society in the long run IMO.




Yep. Because the US has such a healthy society with no adequate social support system. 

What the OP I think is getting at, is the middle class welfare.

I simply cannot believe how much lack of thought went into your comment though Kennas.

Seriously. There has to be a system where people through no fault of their own, become disabled or whatever through the actions of drunk drivers, criminals etc are supported. There has to be a system to support kids and adolescents who are trying to set up a new life away from violent and abusive households. There has to be a system to enable youth with the talent and intellect, to be able to train and be educated for roles they are more capable of than other people in society.

Because otherwise you don't get the best out of society. Talent goes to waste.

But the middle class vote grabbing welfare policies of both Howard and Rudd are obscene.

Honestly... say for instance, you and your wife had 5 kids (not saying anything, purely hypothetical), and you were still in the army. She can't work for obvious reasons, and relies on you. You get killed in the field. Do you honestly expect society to effectively assign your wife and kids to lives that they might as well not even bother living?

I'm sorry, I just don't want to live in a society that makes absurd decisions like that.


----------



## Sean K (18 October 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> I simply cannot believe how much lack of thought went into your comment though Kennas.





I've thought about it a lot.

I'm not having kids because we are too aflush with people as it is. If I become disabled and can not contibute to the human race, euthanise me. 

The solution to just about all global problems is to cull half the pop. 

Don't want to make any contoversial comments of course.


----------



## chops_a_must (18 October 2008)

kennas said:


> I've thought about it a lot.
> 
> I'm not having kids because we are too aflush with people as it is. If I become disabled and can not contibute to the human race, euthanise me.
> 
> ...



It's a silly argument.

Without help in my early adult life, there is no way I would have been able to contribute to society.

It's clearly not thought through at all, apart from your narrow perspective. Ignoring the part about it being hypothetical is a bit of evidence of that.


----------



## Sean K (18 October 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Without help in my early adult life, there is no way I would have been able to contribute to society.



Well, I'm glad you were helped out chops, otherwise we would all be worse off for it. 

In the words of the immortal GG:

'You either do it right, or you are eliminated’.

It has some relevance to my point, so narrow as it is. 

If you think there are no caveats to my position, fine.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (18 October 2008)

Nashezz said:


> Please explain... (include an accent if you need it)



Que?


----------



## chops_a_must (18 October 2008)

kennas said:


> Well, I'm glad you were helped out chops, otherwise we would all be worse off for it.
> 
> In the words of the immortal GG:
> 
> ...



The point is, people aren't always in a position to maximise their worth to society. I would never begrudge anyone the right to achieve that, when it doesn't have to take much to do so.

A lot of people here obviously come from positions of privilege, and just wouldn't have a clue what it is like to do it tough, and know how little it takes to make a massive positive difference to where you head in your life.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (18 October 2008)

kennas said:


> I'm not sure about other countries, but it does really surprise me that the Australian government(s) have continued left of centre policies to prop up those who are incapable.
> 
> It weakens our society in the long run IMO.





Kennas and Chops,

I agree the leftie agenda is in full control. Coming from the middle I believe there is need for some form of support for those in genuine need only but we don't need to overdo it. 

Serial doll bludging families are not in genuine need though. (first cut to expenses and money saved.)

Foreign aid is way too high and needs to be cut. (more savings to pay pensioners with who built the country so little computer game playing  boys and girls could have a nice life) 

Some of the things chops mentioned are valid, but where are the communities to help those in need? Why have we failed in our communities? Why are our hospitals failing when some people are rolling around in handout lined bed sheets?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (18 October 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> The point is, people aren't always in a position to maximise their worth to society. I would never begrudge anyone the right to achieve that, when it doesn't have to take much to do so.
> 
> A lot of people here obviously come from positions of privilege, and just wouldn't have a clue what it is like to do it tough, and know how little it takes to make a massive positive difference to where you head in your life.




Not really, probably some.

Been there, thanks to a black swan and the associated effects.


----------



## son of baglimit (18 October 2008)

Nashezz said:


> Please explain... (include an accent if you need it)




snake - if you put an IPSWICH twang to these words, it should become clear.

and if its still drawing a blank, its initials were PH.

Don't want to make any controversial comments of course.....lol.


----------



## numbercruncher (18 October 2008)

This negative gearing handout given to bludgers to avoid paying tax annoys me the most ! also fuels speculative bubbles and perhaps even complete financial collapse if really unlucky 

Cheers ....


----------



## Sean K (18 October 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Foreign aid is way too high and needs to be cut. (more savings to pay pensioners with who built the country so little computer game playing  boys and girls could have a nice life)



I'm in two minds on this one.

Yes, we should be providing food, clothing, shelter and healthcare to our own people as a priority. 

But at the expence of millions of people dying of starvation in Africa?

Or propping up the PNG economy so the country doesn't fall into the abyss?

In a globalised world, we can't not assist those less well off than our own privilidged society. Lets face it, we're pretty bloody lucky to have been born in Australia. Having seen absolute total abject poverty and misery first hand in Africa, I'm thanking the big tea pot in the sky. 

There needs to be some balance in handouts that's for sure. Perhaps Snake you think we just haven't got that balance right at the moment?

(This is the politically correct kennas - bad kennas say leave them to rot)


----------



## robots (18 October 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> This negative gearing handout given to bludgers to avoid paying tax annoys me the most ! also fuels speculative bubbles and perhaps even complete financial collapse if really unlucky
> 
> Cheers ....




hello,

yeah those bloody margin lending participants have caused all this number, massive speculation on the share market through negative gearing

how can these share buyers expect prices to keep going up and up, the average share would be worth billions, it doesnt compute

thankyou
robots


----------



## Speewha (18 October 2008)

kennas said:


> (This is the politically correct kennas - bad kennas say leave them to rot)




Politically Correct ? 

Isn’t this expression one of those oxymoron thingy’s ?

I have never know any politician or political party that’s ever been correct in anything.

Good to have you back Kennas good or bad

Regards


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 October 2008)

kennas said:


> I'm in two minds on this one.
> 
> Yes, we should be providing food, clothing, shelter and healthcare to our own people as a priority.
> 
> ...




haha. 

McCrann in the OZ today is badkennas. He points out that all pensioners will be spending half the surplus in the one week. Jeez, the hydroponic shops and meth labs better start gearing up for when the payments go in to the keycards.

Now goodkennas, non drug affected pensioners have suffered considerably under the boom with prices of food and utilities, petrol , rocketing , so good on them if they get a Christmas bonus.

gg


----------



## Boggo (18 October 2008)

Copied this from another site, about sums it up really...



> Oh to be an Australian parent. The gravy train has landed with huge handouts for doing absolutely nothing, all in the name of stimulating the economy in this time of financial doom and gloom. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for people who legitimately need help getting it but if you are one of the silly bastards in the workforce, actually contributing, then -please- work harder and pay more tax - families receiving Family Tax Benefit A desperately need new plasma TV's and PlayStations and are counting on you!
> 
> This is a world gone mad. Maybe I have a blinkered view. I'm not married, have no dependants. It's probably safe to say I don't understand the costs involved in raising kids but seeing a mother of four on the news yesterday saying that the $4000 handout she'd be receiving from the government just in time for Christmas would all be spent on presents made my blood boil.
> 
> My average work week is over 65 hours and as selfish and uninformed as this no doubt makes me sound I think that $4000 would have been better [read: more considerably] spent coming back to people who coughed it up in the first place. I'd be more than happy to pump it back into the economy too! God knows my car desperately needs a set of 22in alloys more than some little runt needs Guitar Hero...


----------



## Calliope (18 October 2008)

Never having had to live on a pension I am not qualified to comment on the payment made to them.

But I do have strong objections to the doubling (and tripling) of the first home buyer's grant. This is just worsening one of the stupidities inherited from the previous government. It is feeding the Autralian obsession of home ownership early in life.

Anyone who cannot afford to save the deposit on a home will not be able to afford to service the mortgage. The bonus is just giving them a kickstart to a pie in the sky dream.

The money would be better spent in providing low rental accommodation.


----------



## Boggo (18 October 2008)

Calliope said:


> Anyone who cannot afford to save the deposit on a home will not be able to afford to service the mortgage. The bonus is just giving them a kickstart to a pie in the sky dream.




And is the first stage of creating a sub-prime mortgage situation, now where has that popped up recently 

The price of every house that is for sale in Australia has just gone up by precisely the value of the grant.

Crazy concept.


----------



## Julia (18 October 2008)

kennas said:


> I'm in two minds on this one.



Good to know you acknowledge that.



> Yes, we should be providing food, clothing, shelter and healthcare to our own people as a priority.
> 
> But at the expence of millions of people dying of starvation in Africa?



Yes.   Just so.   There comes a time when we realise all the billions in aid to Africa have been sucked up by the corruption of that continent.   If you adopt your first stance, you'd acknowledge this misery as part of the process of natural selection, wouldn't you?



> Or propping up the PNG economy so the country doesn't fall into the abyss?



Ditto, with the proviso that there could be some self interest involved in Australia not allowing a failed state on our doorstep.





> In a globalised world, we can't not assist those less well off than our own privilidged society. Lets face it, we're pretty bloody lucky to have been born in Australia. Having seen absolute total abject poverty and misery first hand in Africa, I'm thanking the big tea pot in the sky.



You can't seem to make up your mind, Kennas.  
If there's simply not an unlimited pot of funds, then we need to look after our own citizens right here in Australia.





> There needs to be some balance in handouts that's for sure. Perhaps Snake you think we just haven't got that balance right at the moment?



I have no problem with the hand out to pensioners.  They've been doing it very tough indeed, especially those who don't own their own homes.  I doubt there will be many pensioners, whether age, disability or carers who will not use their $1400 constructively.  Maybe some long needed car repairs, home maintenance, even a visit to the dentist.

But, having just written out yet another fairly substantial cheque to the ATO, I sure as hell resent these tax dollars being wasted on $4000 worth of crappy toys in a single family at Christmas.

In terms of caring for those who need it, it's a bit sad that Rudd & Co acknowledged the plight of pensioners not in any genuine sense, but only when they were told to give the economy a quick start.

I guess we can look at this situation two ways:  (1) with a sense of compassion for those who need help, (and I'd hate to live in any society which failed to provide this), and (2) in a purely objective and pragmatic way where we eventually have to say there are too many people and the oldest/weakest/sickest can no longer be supported.


----------



## Sean K (18 October 2008)

Julia said:


> You can't seem to make up your mind, Kennas.



You know I like to play devils advocate occasionally, as well as expressing my own opinion. 

I just fail to make it clear who I am at times...

Major source of conflict post drunken conversations..

Apologies to anyone I have had the horns on with....

eeeek


----------



## DJZ (18 October 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Yep. Because the US has such a healthy society with no adequate social support system.
> 
> What the OP I think is getting at, is the middle class welfare.
> 
> ...




What happened to Charity? People do like to look after other people if they are in the position to do so. Why does the Government have to get involved? they are usually the ones who put the people into the impoverished positions to begin with. 

If there weren't so many taxes to pay for our over the top and outright socialist welfare system, and we had a monetary system that wasn't based on debt so people could actually save without inflation eating away at everything, then people would be in a position to give alot more to charity and the less fortunate would be taken care of through that, free market forces. 

Why do you believe the Government have the forethought and understanding to distribute welfare in a fair and equitable manner? 

Governments are usually always lacking because of the bureaucracy involved, they never provide enough and in the right areas no matter what they do. I believe people within society who understand the "on the ground" issues would do a better job if they got together and ran charity organizations, less bureaucracy, less fat, less waste, more achieved, which would be possible, if the free market had more control over the markets capital, instead of it being at the behest of Government and Bankers.


----------



## Sean K (18 October 2008)

DJZ said:


> What happened to Charity? People do like to look after other people if they are in the position to do so.



All part of the survival insticts of the human animal. 

If you give to others then you expect to receive in return, or develop some sort of self esteem from the act.

Altruism does not exist.

:couch


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 October 2008)

DJZ said:


> What happened to Charity? People do like to look after other people if they are in the position to do so. Why does the Government have to get involved? they are usually the ones who put the people into the impoverished positions to begin with.
> 
> If there weren't so many taxes to pay for our over the top and outright socialist welfare system, and we had a monetary system that wasn't based on debt so people could actually save without inflation eating away at everything, then people would be in a position to give alot more to charity and the less fortunate would be taken care of through that, free market forces.
> 
> ...




you've hit the nail on the head.

I've had a little to do with Vinnies and they can sure help the poor better than any government can.

and they are finding it tougher to get donations since government put their noses in it.

gg


----------



## steve999 (18 October 2008)

I just got paid $5k from the government for making babies and I don't feel guilty at all for taking it. I think it equals about 1-2% of the tax I've had to pay over the last 10 years. It's the only government handout I've ever received so I'm happy to take it. Anyway, the ATO just decided they wanted another $2.5k in tax for something I missed in my tax return from a few years ago so I don't get to spend it anyway.

The people who annoy me are the tradies etc who do the jobs on the side for cash. I'd be happier with a higher GST and no income tax


----------



## Sean K (18 October 2008)

steve999 said:


> I just got paid $5k from the government for making babies and I don't feel guilty at all for taking it. I think it equals about 1-2% of the tax I've had to pay over the last 10 years.



Congrats on the bambinos!!



However, the tax you pay is for some important social infrastructure that makes Australian great. Like roads, and stuff. 

Don't take traffic signs and the police for granted.


----------



## steve999 (18 October 2008)

kennas said:


> Congrats on the bambinos!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm happy to pay the tax, however I'm pretty sure I pay quite a bit more than other people who earn just as much money as me...

I work full time in a job where I can't get any cash on the side etc to pad my income. My wife stays at home to look after the children so we don't put any pressure on childcare or claim the childcare rebate.
We can't split my income, so we pay more tax than if we both worked and earned half my wage each.

I also know people who take heaps of cash on the side and so pay less tax than me, and also "split" the income with the wife, which means they end up paying less tax agin and can also claim family tax benefits etc and get the rudd christmas bonus.
/endrant

It would also make my tax return easier if there was no income tax


----------



## numbercruncher (18 October 2008)

Boggo said:


> And is the first stage of creating a sub-prime mortgage situation, now where has that popped up recently
> 
> The price of every house that is for sale in Australia has just gone up by precisely the value of the grant.
> 
> Crazy concept.





Im really surprised by the amount of people who believe this .... the market has been swamped by stock and the trend is dowwn, way way down ...

This is clearly aimed at Generation Y - (18 to 28yrs ) whom only 5pc of have entered into home ownership ...... seems to me they refuse to be sucked ito the giant ponzi/pyramid scheme .......

Happy to be wrong though, a few short months shall tell !!


----------



## DJZ (18 October 2008)

kennas said:


> All part of the survival insticts of the human animal.
> 
> If you give to others then you expect to receive in return, or develop some sort of self esteem from the act.
> 
> ...




Not True Kenna's, I used to think along the same lines, Everyone ultimately looks after Numero Uno, and thats True, but only in the extreme's, when its becomes a decision or at least perceived decision of You vs Them. 

But I have actually seen a documentary about a study into what happens within the brain when you give to someone WITHOUT expecting anything in return. What they found was that the brain lights up in a way that produces pleasure, so we are hard wired to help people if we can. Thats the main point, IF we are in a position to help we will, if we aren't the need for survival takes over, and some people I suppose have different threshholds and are constantly viewing the world us Me Vs Everyone, which I suppose leads to greed?

So in a society in which people are allowed to save and "Get Ahead", live a comfortable life without being squeezed for everything you earn, and ultimately not have to work so much, then people will naturally help others.

You'll always have the greedy, but there are more givers than takers in most societies.

 somethign like that anyway lol


----------



## Sean K (18 October 2008)

DJZ said:


> Not True Kenna's, I used to think along the same lines, Everyone ultimately looks after Numero Uno, and thats True, but only in the extreme's, when its becomes a decision or at least perceived decision of You vs Them.
> 
> But I have actually seen a documentary about a study into what happens within the brain when you give to someone WITHOUT expecting anything in return. What they found was that the brain lights up in a way that produces pleasure, so we are hard wired to help people if we can. Thats the main point,




Interesting points DJZ...etc..

I will of course disagree, because I think every action is based on a survival imperative. The way we dress, work, act, think, is all dependant on what will develop our self esteem and self actualisation, whatever that means...

I can not have a thought that can not be traced back to my personal goal to survive. 

Just my thoughts of course, in my little corner of the world. Others will have another theory of why I act.


----------



## DJZ (18 October 2008)

kennas said:


> Interesting points DJZ...etc..
> 
> I will of course disagree, because I think every action is based on a survival imperative.




In that case why do people risk there lives to help/save others, eg Police, Firefighters, Rescue Workers, for nothing more than the pay you could get working somewhere alot safer. Plus I know I would risk my life if the situation came around in which others where in desperate need of help, so surely not every action can be based on the will to survive. 

Acts such as these could be called true Altruism couldn't they?

and when it came around to giving away only a fraction of what you earn or what you need to survive, the risk is very minimal, so why wouldn't you?

Charity works, Forced Charity doesn't(not as well anyway), Government Welfare is forced charity.


----------



## Sean K (18 October 2008)

DJZ said:


> In that case why do people risk there lives to help/save others, eg Police, Firefighters, Rescue Workers, for nothing more than the pay you could get working somewhere alot safer. Plus I know I would risk my life if the situation came around in which others where in desperate need of help, so surely not every action can be based on the will to survive.
> 
> Acts such as these could be called true Altruism couldn't they?



Yes, on the surface, absolutely!!

Why would someone jump out in front of a bus to save anyone else?

Can you give any thoughts on that?

kennas


----------



## IFocus (18 October 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> Im really surprised by the amount of people who believe this .... the market has been swamped by stock and the trend is dowwn, way way down ...
> 
> This is clearly aimed at Generation Y - (18 to 28yrs ) whom only 5pc of have entered into home ownership ...... seems to me they refuse to be sucked ito the giant ponzi/pyramid scheme .......
> 
> Happy to be wrong though, a few short months shall tell !!




Ive got a feeling some of it is about propping up the banks, if house prices fall to far it could leave them exposed.


----------



## Calliope (18 October 2008)

Julia said:


> But, having just written out yet another fairly substantial cheque to the ATO, I sure as hell resent these tax dollars being wasted on $4000 worth of crappy toys in a single family at Christmas.




That strikes a chord with me. I am in the process of doing my tax return and I am not happy. Like hundreds of others I made the flight to safety from shares to term deposits. With tax at the marginal rate and high inflation the returns are minimal.

Is it any wonder that Mr Rudd assures us that our deposits are safe. While our savings are in the bank the interest can be plundered by the taxman, and Mr Rudd can then transfer the money to all those non-savers with exhortations that they spend it quickly.


----------



## son of baglimit (18 October 2008)

hey - how about we have a need to show disclosure for govt handouts, like we do for shareholdings.

in 1993 i was on the dole for 6 months.

in 2005 my wife received a $4000 maternity payment.

in 2008 she received a $5000 maternity payment.

in the late 90's peter costello changed the CGT rules which meant i only had to declare half my capital gains if held for 12 months plus. i have used this several times, reducing my tax bill by thousands. it aint classified as welfare, but it certainly benefits the better off in society.

if i think of more i'll add to it.

ANYONE ELSE ?


----------



## nunthewiser (18 October 2008)

son of baglimit said:


> hey - how about we have a need to show disclosure for govt handouts, like we do for shareholdings.
> 
> in 1993 i was on the dole for 6 months.
> 
> ...





well im about to get as many personal loans and credit cards as i can , transfer all assets , claim banktruptcy , spit out 15 kids and go on the dole till the financial crisis is over


gawd bless a sunburnt country


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 October 2008)

In my opinion the events of the past month or so have blown sky high all arguments that we can't afford to be funding health, education, welfare and so on.

If we can afford to blow massive amounts on the bankers' ponzi schemes which deliver nothing but pain to the masses then we could have afforded to spend the same creating a much better world.

I wouldn't consider myself socialist. But the bail outs of banks etc have blown a massive hole in the argument that we can't afford spending in other areas. Since the taxpayer has apparently been taking most of the risk, it's only just that from now on most (say 90%) of all bank profits are handed straight over to the tax office. My taxes are taking the risk, so that's where the profits should be going.

And since bank CEO's are effectively nothing more than senior public servants, given that government is underwriting their so-called businesses, it's fair that they (and all other bank staff) be paid the appropriate public service wages effective immediately. 

That simple measure will fund all the welfare, health and other things we're likely to need. Imperfect yes, but I'd rather a bail out for the disabled, pensioners and so on than a bail out for the greedy as we've seen recently.


----------



## nunthewiser (18 October 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> And since bank CEO's are effectively nothing more than senior public servants, given that government is underwriting their so-called businesses, it's fair that they (and all other bank staff) be paid the appropriate public service wages effective immediately.
> 
> That simple measure will fund all the welfare, health and other things we're likely to need. Imperfect yes, but I'd rather a bail out for the disabled, pensioners and so on than a bail out for the greedy as we've seen recently.




Hear hear, well done top post , thanks

if only, hey


----------



## chops_a_must (18 October 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> I wouldn't consider myself socialist. But the bail outs of banks etc have blown a massive hole in the argument that we can't afford spending in other areas. Since the taxpayer has apparently been taking most of the risk, it's only just that from now on most (say 90%) of all bank profits are handed straight over to the tax office. My taxes are taking the risk, so that's where the profits should be going.



I'm waiting for 3/4 of the Unis around Australia to be bailed out. 

Long live the liberals hey!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 October 2008)

kennas said:


> Well, I'm glad you were helped out chops, otherwise we would all be worse off for it.
> 
> In the words of the immortal GG:
> 
> ...




Hey kennas mate when did I say this and in what context.

or was it the governor general 

gg


----------



## Julia (19 October 2008)

kennas said:


> You know I like to play devils advocate occasionally, as well as expressing my own opinion.
> 
> I just fail to make it clear who I am at times...
> 
> ...



No apology required.  I wasn't trying to 'get at you'.  I think most people are ambivalent on at least some of this topic.


----------



## Julia (19 October 2008)

[


kennas said:


> All part of the survival insticts of the human animal.
> 
> If you give to others then you expect to receive in return, or develop some sort of self esteem from the act.
> 
> ...



Kennas, because you personally are lacking in altruism doesn't mean it doesn't exist in others.




Smurf1976 said:


> In my opinion the events of the past month or so have blown sky high all arguments that we can't afford to be funding health, education, welfare and so on.
> 
> If we can afford to blow massive amounts on the bankers' ponzi schemes which deliver nothing but pain to the masses then we could have afforded to spend the same creating a much better world.




I completely agree.  And from the remarks of various commentators it seems the government will be prepared to go into deficit to continue along this path.
That will make the likelihood of any genuinely constructive spending even more remote.



DJZ said:


> Not True Kenna's, I used to think along the same lines, Everyone ultimately looks after Numero Uno, and thats True, but only in the extreme's, when its becomes a decision or at least perceived decision of You vs Them.
> 
> But I have actually seen a documentary about a study into what happens within the brain when you give to someone WITHOUT expecting anything in return. What they found was that the brain lights up in a way that produces pleasure, so we are hard wired to help people if we can. Thats the main point, IF we are in a position to help we will, if we aren't the need for survival takes over, and some people I suppose have different threshholds and are constantly viewing the world us Me Vs Everyone, which I suppose leads to greed?
> 
> ...



Great post.


----------



## deadset (19 October 2008)

The handouts always go to families, and the single worker pays the bill.  
I'm all for the Pensioners getting a $1000 bonus.

But I really start to wonder about this country and how it has been managed previously.

What has been the point of me trying to get ahead in this country, I would have been much better off leaving school at Year 10 and getting a trade, having a family and getting into all sorts of weird rebate paperwork on my weekends.  I've definitely paid more tax than what I'm able to save, in fact I'm sure I've paid more tax than what I've actually spent in these last 8 years.

Why do they take more out than necessary from the WAGE tax ?  That is totally unexplanable and unforgiveable.  You end up paying close to 50%.

Now I know that I'm an intelligent high paid worker, whereas I wouldn't even consider buying a house as its been unaffordable.  I'd like to start a family myself, unfortunately with all the tax I've paid during my working life, I don't have as much to show for all my hard work that I would have liked.  Let's face it, to get a wife that wants to start a family, you need to have money and lots of it, this is an essential precondition, so much for unconditional love I know, but its obvious that a woman's love is highly conditional, this is a fact of life.

SO it feels like the govt really beats you down to keep you down, but if you have a family already, its alright, they'll look after you.

Why is Capital Gains tax 50% when business tax is 30% ?  This really discouragges the individual doesn't it ?  Is 50% tax ever acceptable for anything ?

Anything over 25% tax is obscene.

Surely university places have gone down for locals ?


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 October 2008)

I have observed and experienced people as takers in general.When a major crisis or catastrophe occurs then more will usually give of money but in general people are takers.

There is a very small percentage of givers who give of their time and love with no expectation of something in return.They complete their life cycle without fuss and are hardly seen or heard.

These people are givers of self and are few.Selfless giving.Do you know what that is?

...............................

From another angle --- there is absolutely no reason why anyone should help someone that they don`t know.The individual or group going through a negative (for want of another word) experience is completely something for them to go through.For instance, I did not give money to the tidal wave hitting land.A natural occurence!

Compassionate???? I`m sure there are many  in the world that choose when to be compassionate based on  ego (the community will love/accept me), beliefs, own experiences and whether or not there is a tax deduction from it.


So there are two types of givers :-

1) Governments and citizens of a society that want it back.Give with one hand take (more) with the other.

2) Selfless givers who complete their lifecycle quietly and give from their heart.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 October 2008)

deadset said:


> SO it feels like the govt really beats you down to keep you down, but if you have a family already, its alright, they'll look after you.



It's Christian fundamentalism. Keep those babies coming...


----------



## Nashezz (20 October 2008)

Calliope said:


> Never having had to live on a pension I am not qualified to comment on the payment made to them.
> 
> But I do have strong objections to the doubling (and tripling) of the first home buyer's grant. This is just worsening one of the stupidities inherited from the previous government. It is feeding the Autralian obsession of home ownership early in life.
> 
> ...




Holy sheet Calliope - I agree with you



Garpal Gumnut said:


> you've hit the nail on the head.
> 
> I've had a little to do with Vinnies and they can sure help the poor better than any government can.
> 
> ...




We have had tax cuts for something like 3 or 4 successive budgets. Has that seen a similar increase in charitable donations? I would be surprised.


----------



## Calliope (21 October 2008)

The decision by the govt, as part of their "stabilising package", to guarantee bank deposits has now come back to bite them.

One of Australia's biggest mortgage trusts, the Challenger Howard trust has now frozen redemptions. They have had a flood of redemptions since the guarantee as investors have fled to the safety of the banks. Other mortgage trusts, once regarded as conservatve and safe are having to follow suit. Apparently Cash Management Trusts could also be affected.

This bank deposit guarantee was hastily cobbled together and ill thought out. Surely the Treasury would have warned Rudd and Swan that this could happen.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (22 October 2008)

The doll should be limited to 3 months.


----------



## Julia (22 October 2008)

Calliope said:


> The decision by the govt, as part of their "stabilising package", to guarantee bank deposits has now come back to bite them.
> 
> One of Australia's biggest mortgage trusts, the Challenger Howard trust has now frozen redemptions. They have had a flood of redemptions since the guarantee as investors have fled to the safety of the banks. Other mortgage trusts, once regarded as conservatve and safe are having to follow suit. Apparently Cash Management Trusts could also be affected.
> 
> This bank deposit guarantee was hastily cobbled together and ill thought out. Surely the Treasury would have warned Rudd and Swan that this could happen.



Calliope, maybe put this comment in the bank guarantee thread.  I've just posted something similar.




It's Snake Pliskin said:


> The doll should be limited to 3 months.



Hello Snake

"doll"???
Why do you think it would be fair for the dole to be limited to 3 months?
As the economy falters, more people will lose their jobs.  What are they supposed to do if they can't find another job in three months?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (22 October 2008)

Julia said:


> Hello Snake
> 
> "doll"???
> Why do you think it would be fair for the dole to be limited to 3 months?
> As the economy falters, more people will lose their jobs.  What are they supposed to do if they can't find another job in three months?




Hello Julia,

Thanks for your question. Please excuse my use of the vernacular, it should read dole.

I believe people should build their communities so as to provide support and assistance to each other. This can build contacts (which is the real way to find jobs) and networking community to community. Currently we fail as a society in this regard. Everyone is too greedy and self-centred. People need to change attitudes.

As there are many people living permanantly off the doll which is admired by people in other countries, I feel it is not good for the nation and society in general if people can have a permanent handout or strive to emigrate here to get that handout and then get a bad back. 

Jobs can be found, people just have to look and not be too fussy until something better can be found.  Other countries such as Japan only have a 3 month limit for the "doll", and others do not have any "doll".

Lazy = no jobs.
Proactive qualities = jobs to be found or created. 

It is amazing what can happen with the right attitude.

The handout mentality is socialist in nature and only has a place in failed states like the former USSR. 

I am all for support for those who are injured and or have a dissability. I have been there and know all about that. 

Thanks.


----------



## Nashezz (22 October 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Hello Julia,
> 
> Thanks for your question. Please excuse my use of the vernacular, it should read dole.
> 
> ...




Umm not too many countries are set up to support a 0% unemployment rate. :chainsaw:


----------



## Sean K (23 October 2008)

Julia said:


> Kennas, because you personally are lacking in altruism doesn't mean it doesn't exist in others.



Julia, it was a general comment on the human species, not a personal comment. 

Maybe I'm on my own in that view of people and why they act, but I'm allowed to have that view, like anyone can claim they are altruistic. 

Just because you think altruism exists doesn't mean it does.



Of course, I'm happy to openly discuss this which I find to be a really interesting topic. I'd really like someone to give me a good example that it does exist, it's a nice warm and fuzzy concept.


----------



## chops_a_must (23 October 2008)

kennas said:


> Just because you think altruism exists doesn't mean it does.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, I'm happy to openly discuss this which I find to be a really interesting topic. I'd really like someone to give me a good example that it does exist, it's a nice warm and fuzzy concept.



The fact we are able to discuss it intelligibly, means it already exists to some extent, does it not? qed.


----------



## Julia (23 October 2008)

kennas said:


> Julia, it was a general comment on the human species, not a personal comment.



Yes, Kennas.  I recognised that and I disagreed with you.   Hence my comment which suggests that although you may never be motivated purely in the interest of helping someone else, it's equally possible that other people behave differently.

We've discussed this before.   I've always acknowledged that any act of apparent altruism will likely be accompanied by a 'payoff' to the altruist (if there's such a word) of enhanced self esteem, a sense of making a difference, being worthwhile etc.

But anything I say will - as with you - be coloured by my own experience.  Ditto everyone else.


----------



## Spaghetti (23 October 2008)

Paying rich people to have babies and buy houses is not logical. Many of them say "but we have paid our taxes". So there you have it, nanny state mentality. They should be saying why don't we just pay less tax, but instead there seems a preference to be told by the government what you should be spending *your* money on.

Paying pensioners a little extra is too hard but to hand over $22,000 to a rich kid to buy a house is ok? There is no logic.


----------



## nunthewiser (23 October 2008)

Hi any truth to the rumour that the rudd goverment gunna guarantee all labour voters stock holdings against losses next ?


----------



## Sean K (24 October 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Hey kennas mate when did I say this and in what context.
> 
> or was it the governor general
> 
> gg



LOL. First name Gordon...


----------



## johenmo (25 October 2008)

How have the "handouts" changed over time - say as a % of GDP/gov budget or some other measure?  Anyone know or able to show this?  Be interesting to know if we are paying more in relative terms over the decades.

The handouts (until recently) seem to be growing in minority areas or specific groups, rather than addressing the "majority".  I used to be on the board of a non-profit organisation and therefore had an interest in this area.  There's more draw on food banks, church/charity organisations and such, and funds from both the gov and the public is dropping.  Schools do more fund-raising.

We'd get better bang for our buck if some money went the way of some of the better organisations like Vinnies, rather than as direct cash payments.  Some suppliers (still) bump up the price if goods and services if it's the government - was more popular 20 years ago.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (26 October 2008)

johenmo said:


> How have the "handouts" changed over time - say as a % of GDP/gov budget or some other measure?  Anyone know or able to show this?  Be interesting to know if we are paying more in relative terms over the decades.
> 
> The handouts (until recently) seem to be growing in minority areas or specific groups, rather than addressing the "majority".  I used to be on the board of a non-profit organisation and therefore had an interest in this area.  There's more draw on food banks, church/charity organisations and such, and funds from both the gov and the public is dropping.  Schools do more fund-raising.
> 
> We'd get better bang for our buck if some money went the way of some of the better organisations like Vinnies, rather than as direct cash payments.  Some suppliers (still) bump up the price if goods and services if it's the government - was more popular 20 years ago.




Some good comments. Building the community is better than just handing out cash.


----------



## Sean K (26 October 2008)

And while we're all concerned about waiting in line for a knee reconstruction, central Africa is still in turmoil.

Leave them be, or be part of the globe?



*Village attacks displace 12000*
From correspondents in Khartoum
October 26, 2008 04:00am

ARAB militia attacks on Sudanese villages near a south Darfur flashpoint displaced up to 12000 people and killed more than 40 civilians, an aid worker and a rights watchdog said today. 

Clear-cut details on who was behind the fighting, the full extent of damage and casualties remain elusive because of minimal humanitarian access to the area around Muhagiriya, east of the South Darfur state capital, Nyala. 

"At least 15 villages were attacked and burnt, and about 12,000 people displaced,'' one international aid worker told AFP on condition of anonymity. 

The US-based organisation, Human Rights Watch, said more than 40 civilians were killed between October 5 and 17, and thousands fled their homes. 


Oh, and by the way, I had to sacrifice an Argentianean Malbec for a Chilean Cab Sav tonight.

Just like you back home are embarrassed about eating a three course meal tonight while Africa starves. 

Hmmm, maybe they should be.


----------



## noirua (26 October 2008)

kennas said:


> And while we're all concerned about waiting in line for a knee reconstruction, central Africa is still in turmoil.
> 
> Leave them be, or be part of the globe?
> 
> ...



A very good point all this as near everyone is worrying about themselves. I notice companies are starting to pull away from the White Nile as small companies shares collapse towards zero, as the oil price collapses. 

China may also move out from their Blue Nile base and curtail agreements with the Sudan.

Looks black indeed.


----------



## Sean K (30 October 2008)

Cripes, maybe we're not a handout nation at all..




Aussies in world's list of poorest
October 23, 2008 12:00am 

AUSTRALIA'S retirees are the fourth poorest in the developed world, a report card on poverty has found.

And we have the poorest unemployed people of any developed nation. 

The Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development has found that half our single retirees are living in poverty, defined as less than 50 per cent of average earnings. And 27 per cent of all our retirees are living in poverty.


----------



## Spaghetti (30 October 2008)

No the handouts are for the rich to buy babies and buy houses. We only handout to those that have, not those that have not.

This one is interesting. The government is spending big on infrastructure to stimulate the economy and sub contracts work out like road/bridge construction. The contractor hire staff casual basis only and hires far too many to ensure full staff when required. So they end up with a large poorly paid part time payroll. Soon as it rains or a delay the casual staff are not paid so they maintain records with centrelink so they recieve the difference in benefits. So the taxpayer pays twice for this labour and the contractor is the only one making decent money. So the economy is not better off overall, the casual lose their houses to contractor family members who get paid $15,000 to buy their house off them.

This is how Australia works now.


----------



## DJZ (7 November 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> From another angle --- there is absolutely no reason why anyone should help someone that they don`t know.The individual or group going through a negative (for want of another word) experience is completely something for them to go through.For instance, I did not give money to the tidal wave hitting land.A natural occurence!




So what about a little thing called empathy??? 

A wave has no feelings, it is nothing but a single wave of energy, A Creature that has a will of its own, a survival instinct, can feel and understand what pain is, why would you NOT want to help someone you don't know if you see them in pain and suffering??? 

I know I couldn't just walk past or over someone who is really suffering, and If I really couldn't help them, I would feel dreadful that I was not in a better position to do so.

Its called Empathy and it is a natural occurance within nearly all animals, our brains are literally hard wired to help those in need.


----------



## Nashezz (7 November 2008)

yeh cept some Liberal voters who are literally hard-wired to help themselves.


----------



## Glen48 (7 November 2008)

Heard today the smart one are going to Harvey Norman and buying items on the nothing to pay for 50 mths then taking them to the Pawn brokers... that's free enterprise.
Other are paying 35% a month to keep items locked up ( Grand Mothers wedding ring etc. ) and not to be sold until they come good with the loot one bloke has paid for his Bike twice.


----------



## Julia (7 November 2008)

Nashezz said:


> yeh cept some Liberal voters who are literally hard-wired to help themselves.




I was just feeling some empathy with your previous post, Nashezz, and then you have to ruin it by the above.  Just can't resist poking the political stick, can you!   The topic was surely worthy of apolitical discussion.


----------



## Julia (7 November 2008)

Glen48 said:


> Heard today the smart one are going to Harvey Norman and buying items on the nothing to pay for 50 mths then taking them to the Pawn brokers..



How silly is that.  They are still going to have to come up with the cash in 50 months and probably then won't be able to so will be lumped with massive interest on the payment.


----------



## nunthewiser (7 November 2008)

Julia said:


> How silly is that.  They are still going to have to come up with the cash in 50 months and probably then won't be able to so will be lumped with massive interest on the payment.






no they will shift assets , claim banktrupcy and join the list of other entrepeneurs that used the sytem to its fullest extent.

sad 

but true


----------



## sinner (8 November 2008)

Julia said:


> How silly is that.  They are still going to have to come up with the cash in 50 months and probably then won't be able to so will be lumped with massive interest on the payment.




Yeah I'm Joe Avg my kids are hungry today and I have no money do you think I care about the debt collectors in 50 months? They can join the queue!


----------



## Glen48 (8 November 2008)

I winder how much of HN and others sales are the 50 Mths nothing to pay or should that be pay nothing?
Just another debt to be sorted out with more unemployment and high Interest rates.
If we are to spend $x billion on ABC and then in 6 mths time unemployment rises how many parents will need child care when they will be sitting at Home, also sounds like ABC are not profitable to start with hence their demise.?


----------



## Julia (8 November 2008)

nunthewiser said:


> no they will shift assets , claim banktrupcy and join the list of other entrepeneurs that used the sytem to its fullest extent.
> 
> sad
> 
> but true






sinner said:


> Yeah I'm Joe Avg my kids are hungry today and I have no money do you think I care about the debt collectors in 50 months? They can join the queue!




Terrific!   I don't doubt that you're both right and that many people do have this attitude.  Then I guess the stores handing out this level of credit have only themselves to blame.   I hope our tax dollars don't start bailing out Harvey Norman et al the way they are now doing with ABC Learning.


----------



## nunthewiser (8 November 2008)

Julia said:


> Terrific!   I don't doubt that you're both right and that many people do have this attitude.  Then I guess the stores handing out this level of credit have only themselves to blame.   I hope our tax dollars don't start bailing out Harvey Norman et al the way they are now doing with ABC Learning.




cant say im too impressed with my dollars bailing these people out but also i am a realist and this game is played by joe bloggs up to the bondys out there

the system is there to let them do it 

ps harvey norman uses a credit provider so its not actually HN that wears the bill


----------



## jeflin (8 November 2008)

Spaghetti said:


> No the handouts are for the rich to buy babies and buy houses. We only handout to those that have, not those that have not.
> 
> This one is interesting. The government is spending big on infrastructure to stimulate the economy and sub contracts work out like road/bridge construction. The contractor hire staff casual basis only and hires far too many to ensure full staff when required. So they end up with a large poorly paid part time payroll. Soon as it rains or a delay the casual staff are not paid so they maintain records with centrelink so they recieve the difference in benefits. So the taxpayer pays twice for this labour and the contractor is the only one making decent money. So the economy is not better off overall, the casual lose their houses to contractor family members who get paid $15,000 to buy their house off them.
> 
> This is how Australia works now.





The problem of handouts will get worse as the population ages.


----------



## Nashezz (9 November 2008)

Julia said:


> I was just feeling some empathy with your previous post, Nashezz, and then you have to ruin it by the above.  Just can't resist poking the political stick, can you!   The topic was surely worthy of apolitical discussion.




You are right Julia - couldn't help myself - should have...


----------



## Sean K (9 November 2008)

Julia said:


> How silly is that.  They are still going to have to come up with the cash in 50 months and probably then won't be able to so will be lumped with massive interest on the payment.



Yep, IMO this is a clear case where some government regulation into credit is justified to save the idiots from themselves.

HVN is also culpable in causing alot of the pain some may be experiencing through this easy credit debacle. FFS, with all that's happening how can we still be allowing this?


----------



## Nashezz (9 November 2008)

nunthewiser said:


> cant say im too impressed with my dollars bailing these people out but also i am a realist and this game is played by joe bloggs up to the bondys out there
> 
> the system is there to let them do it
> 
> ps harvey norman uses a credit provider so its not actually HN that wears the bill




Yeh I don't see it happening that much. You would need to satisfy a few criteria not easily all met

- person must be of disreputable character and/or desperate
- person must not have been a bankrupt before
- and person must satisfy other parts of a credit check

and even then, pawn shops don't exactly pay top dollar...


----------



## xoa (10 November 2008)

Listening to ABC radio's coverage of Parliament today, and a minister is explaining a new education tax rebate...

...it took her about 15 minutes to explain it in all its nuisances: parents of primary school students are treated differently to parents of secondary school students. If the parents are separated, there's a formula that determines who gets what. She explains that parents should start keeping receipts now for everything from internet connection fees to underwear. Parents who pay net tax have one form to fill out and send to the ATO, parents who don't pay net tax will have a different form to send away. If the parents are separated, there's another procedure to follow. "Working families" this, "battlers" that...

The administration costs must be obscene. The gum mint needs to stop micromanaging our lives.


----------

