Punish the poor, reward the rich!

[luutzu]

As long as the requirements for Newstart remain, like actively looking for a job or undergoing training then I see no reason why the rate shouldn't be increased to enable people to fulfill the requirements, like actually being able to afford to travel to interviews or courses etc, not to mention paying the rent and light bills.

Why the luxury? Paying rent for housing and bills for lighting?

You're too idealistic Rumpole.

 

[Klogg]

Tough love for the poor. Gentle backrub and fine dining for the rich.

That's how you motivate people ey.

It sound almost like the poor is a different kind of species to the rich.

How so? The rich aren't requesting handouts from the tax payer, and likely contribute more than their fair share in taxes.

Those that are rich (other than those who inherited their wealth) are there because they have largely provided significant value to society. That's how capitalism works for the most part.

 

[Smurf1976]

I’ve never been on the dole (under its various official names over the years) and have no intention of ever claiming it. I also aim to avoid the old age pension in due course and be self funded.

I will however very willingly march through the streets in protest should anyone attempt to abolish welfare payments. I am also none too keen on the repeated “bashing” of those on welfare by politicians, an act which ensures I will not vote for those doing so or their party.

Providing welfare for those in need is one of the costs of a fair, civilised society and I’m more than happy to pay taxes to fund it. Sure there will be some abusing the system and that should be dealt with but never at the price of cutting off payment to those in genuine need due to whatever circumstances.

In an effort to avoid long term reliance on welfare I do think that employers ought to be incentivised to offer vacant positions to people who have not been employed in the past 12 months (including those not claiming welfare for whatever reason). That’s incentivise not compel and my thought is along the lines of some sort of grant or tax rebate. I think that would help break the cycle at least for those who genuinely do want to work.

The other one is that those who refuse to employ local workers in their businesses should be cracked down on very firmly. A special high tax rate may help improve their attitude.

 

[luutzu]

How so? The rich aren't requesting handouts from the tax payer, and likely contribute more than their fair share in taxes.

Those that are rich (other than those who inherited their wealth) are there because they have largely provided significant value to society. That's how capitalism works for the most part.

Do you live in the real world or some imaginary economic textbook?

All corporations and its investors gain from gov't subsidies. It's called corporate welfare... or in capitalist lingo... "incentives", "security", "job creator", "trickle down economics".

It might suprise you that quite often, those who are rich got rich because they do not give a damn about anybody. They put money first. Social well being; fairness; safety; best interest of their customers... way, way down somewhere.

Look at Bezos and his Amazon. Freakin forcing his (non) employees to work like dogs on pay so low they qualifies for food stamp and gov't assistance.

Or look at his Blue Origin space programme. Yea, to fly tourists into the stratosphere to see bugger all for a small fee of $200K a pop... and oh look, it just won a Pentagon contract for about $2.5B to use its high tech rocket engines, delivering payloads instead of stupid people.

 

[SirRumpole]

You're too idealistic Rumpole.

And you may be a bit cynical luutzu.

 

[Klogg]

Do you live in the real world or some imaginary economic textbook?

All corporations and its investors gain from gov't subsidies. It's called corporate welfare... or in capitalist lingo... "incentives", "security", "job creator", "trickle down economics".

It might suprise you that quite often, those who are rich got rich because they do not give a damn about anybody. They put money first. Social well being; fairness; safety; best interest of their customers... way, way down somewhere.

Look at Bezos and his Amazon. Freakin forcing his (non) employees to work like dogs on pay so low they qualifies for food stamp and gov't assistance.

Or look at his Blue Origin space programme. Yea, to fly tourists into the stratosphere to see bugger all for a small fee of $200K a pop... and oh look, it just won a Pentagon contract for about $2.5B to use its high tech rocket engines, delivering payloads instead of stupid people.

Bezos is forcing people to work? Here's me thinking they had the right to quit and find another place of employment... Oh that's right, the market sets the price of labour, and if Amazon were underpaying, people would quit. Or are we now saying people are too stupid to find another job when they're underpaid?

Amazon don't have the right to enslave anyone to work. Just because the media reports they're an evil corporation, it doesn't make it so.

I might also mention that 44 million people (approx) are on food stamps. That's over 13% of Americans. Maybe the problem is that food stamps are too easy to get?

As for Bezos, he has provided products at a significantly low cost to people, raising living standards by making everyone's pay cheque go that little bit further... In other words, increased productivity, passed on to the masses.

Let me also bring up the fact that Bezos lives and dies by customer satisfaction. Amazon have been the number 1 rated company by consumers for thirteen years running in the US. Not by putting profits first, but by putting the customer first. They provided value in many transactions to a large number of people.

You can argue that he's underpaying people, but it's markets and free trade that got us to where we are now. Burning it now because you want the same outcome for everyone will just take us back many years.

 

[luutzu]

And you may be a bit cynical luutzu.

A bit disillusioned.

See, I took a second degree in business because I wanted to be really rich by creating something of great value, showing off my talent and genius. Then as I go into it, it seem like it's mostly just one big welfare programme.

That'd be fine too if only I was invited to join but nope. So maybe it will take genius afterall?

Reading this thick about about Japan's Mitsui. The author quoted Meiji Japan's first, or second, prime minister conclusion from his various travels and studies of Western empires - to make Japan great again - was that all western industries were made possible from their government subsidies. That is, there would not be any industrial powerhouse in the West if the government does not support it.

This is the same guy that, like the great men in our modern era, believe that peasants are stupid know nothing... peasants... who ought to leave the governing of the state to wise and intelligent (rich) people.

But he believe in corporate welfare. Hence, massive subsidies were put towards a few selected loyalist. Such as the Mitsui, some dude that established Mitsubishi etc. etc.

Through government money, easy regulation on them but tough taxation on foreign (mainly US) corporations... Japan managed to create an industrial manufacturing society, ready and able to literally take on all of Asia in a couple decades.


In the West, especially of late... corporation still get subsidies and protection. BUT they no longer pay taxes on their earnings. Shifting it offshore to lower tax countries, lobby for tax loopholes only they and their rich friends could manage to hire consultant to get through... and so all we're getting now is the shifting of wealth from the poor and working class upwards, with little if any being trickled down.

Heard a recent interview, I think it was Bill Black, saying that Apple set up a subsidiary in Ireland where the topline tax rate is 15%. To pay that rate they would have to produce their gears there, right?

Well, apparently no. They simply ship their entire inventory to Ireland first, put a sticker on it or something superficial... then claim that it is in Ireland that their product came to life. Hence, lower tax on profit.

 

[Darc Knight]

I might also mention that 44 million people (approx) are on food stamps. That's over 13% of Americans. Maybe the problem is that food stamps are too easy to get?

When I read that sentence about 44million people being on Food Stamps I was shocked. But not as shocked as when I read your heartless statement about them possibly being too easy to get geez!
The is the USA right? Where people die from homelessness every cold snap and where the Rich get Tax cuts.

 

[luutzu]

Bezos is forcing people to work? Here's me thinking they had the right to quit and find another place of employment... Oh that's right, the market sets the price of labour, and if Amazon were underpaying, people would quit. Or are we now saying people are too stupid to find another job when they're underpaid?

Amazon don't have the right to enslave anyone to work. Just because the media reports they're an evil corporation, it doesn't make it so.

I might also mention that 44 million people (approx) are on food stamps. That's over 13% of Americans. Maybe the problem is that food stamps are too easy to get?

As for Bezos, he has provided products at a significantly low cost to people, raising living standards by making everyone's pay cheque go that little bit further... In other words, increased productivity, passed on to the masses.

Let me also bring up the fact that Bezos lives and dies by customer satisfaction. Amazon have been the number 1 rated company by consumers for thirteen years running in the US. Not by putting profits first, but by putting the customer first. They provided value in many transactions to a large number of people.

You can argue that he's underpaying people, but it's markets and free trade that got us to where we are now. Burning it now because you want the same outcome for everyone will just take us back many years.

They're being underpaid at Amazon (and places like WalMart). But then in them having a job and a low income, they are qualified for government assistance. Without a job, no assistance. With a job that's low paid plus gov't assistance, bills get paid and caravan get fuel.

And it is through rigging for gov't assistance to low income workers that the likes of Amazon can get away with paying a low, not liveable wage. They pass the cost onto the Amercan taxpayers.

And that is why they also offer a service to their employees on how to apply for gov't assistance. Isn't that nice? You get a job and it also teaches you how to apply for "entitlements" because you're so poorly paid.
-------------

Most of Amazon's profit comes from, get this, not Amazon the ecommerce site itself; but from its web services/data centre. Guess who subsidise most of that? The gov't and its many intelligence agencies.

Customer satisfaction does not always equate to value creation now does it? There are the underpaid workers, the taxpayers whose tax subside them because of their low income (even though they're fully employed)... So if you extract the savings that way... sure, maybe a bit of it goes towards good prices.

But that's why you, or Amazon, wanted to monopolise the market. Then customers will take what's given.

---------

You're misreading the statistics. Just because there are a high number of those on food stamp does not then mean it's easy to get food stamp. It simply mean there are too many poor people being eligible for it.

There is no such thing as a "free market", or "free trade".

The only time corporations cry for such nonsense is when they want third world countries to open up their market for proper exploitation and decimation of the local small time operators. For example, Mexico. Their small local farmers got properly stuffed when NAFTA was introduced, allowing cheaper US (gov't subsidised) grains to flow south.

With the US gov't guaranteeing big Ag a profit, "free trade" then set about flooding Mexico with US grown grains, destroying local farmers. Some of whom then head over the border to rape everyone before getting to an American farm to work as cheap, exploited labour.

Same with the US auto industry. Free Trade through NAFTA allow US auto makers to shift their manufacturing to Mexico where the labour is cheap and the environmental protection zero.


So you're right that free trade and capitalism makes the world what it is today... Just that today... how are things today for most people around the world?

Is life better or are we on the verge of WWIII?

More equal or 8 [? seriously 8?] people have as much wealth as half the world population?

 

[Darc Knight]

I can't believe anyone thinks the USA is a just and fair Nation to its poor and sick etc!

 

[luutzu]

 

[PZ99]

I can't believe anyone thinks the USA is a just and fair Nation to its poor and sick etc!

I can't believe some of the idiots that want Australia to take the same path. Workchoices was a clear step in that direction. It's almost as if some rich people aren't happy with their lot in life. They just can't get enough so to increase their financial superiority they advocate for everyone else to earn / have less.

Murdoch labelling low-income earners as bludgers is hilarious given that he is an A-Grade tax avoider.

 

[SirRumpole]

Well, apparently no. They simply ship their entire inventory to Ireland first, put a sticker on it or something superficial... then claim that it is in Ireland that their product came to life. Hence, lower tax on profit.

You might like to read the link in Post #32 of this thread.

 

[luutzu]

You might like to read the link in Post #32 of this thread.

Nice.

That concept of "offshore" meaning "not here"... I didn't see it that way but now that it's mentioned... remember when Trump gave US multinational a "tax holiday", reducing their offshore profit tax to something like 15% if they bring it back? Creating jobs and all that?

Saw an interview where the guy said most of those money are already in the US. It's literally sitting in a bank account in the US. It's just "not there". So when Trump said to bring it back, he just gave them more tax cuts... and with that, they simply use it to buy back stocks because there's not a lot of consumers and demand out there to invest in productive industries.

I think the US buyback this year, so far, just reached $1 Trillion.

Imagine what a Trillion could do... The Chinese spent about $1Trillion over the past decade on high speed rail. Reducing the time, distance and pollution across their cities. The US spent it buying electronic money.

 

[luutzu]

You might like to read the link in Post #32 of this thread.

The double Irish Dutch sandwich.

Apparently the Trump clan use something similar like that in the 80s and 90s [?] to avoid paying inheritance tax. Getting away with about $500M.

They've pulled other similar schemes way, way back when the Donald was 3 years old. Apparently his genius starts early when pappa somehow create a company for 3 year old Donald to run. The guy charged his old man a few hundred percent on everything... hence no profit. No tax.

Then.. get this.. Trump snr., use the fact that his expenses are getting way too expensive to claim against the government to allow him to increase his rent on those low-income slumps he own.

It's quite something.

 

[luutzu]

I can't believe some of the idiots that want Australia to take the same path. Workchoices was a clear step in that direction. It's almost as if some rich people aren't happy with their lot in life. They just can't get enough so to increase their financial superiority they advocate for everyone else to earn / have less.

Murdoch labelling low-income earners as bludgers is hilarious given that he is an A-Grade tax avoider.

Saw a doco where this lady living in a gated community said her richer neighbours wanted a second gate in that gated community.

It's not for safety or such... just to show how much better they really are.

 

[Klogg]

I can't believe some of the idiots that want Australia to take the same path. Workchoices was a clear step in that direction. It's almost as if some rich people aren't happy with their lot in life. They just can't get enough so to increase their financial superiority they advocate for everyone else to earn / have less.

Murdoch labelling low-income earners as bludgers is hilarious given that he is an A-Grade tax avoider.

Work choices was great. It allowed an employer and employee to decide on their own contractual agreement, within the confines of the law.

If both parties consent to the arrangement, how is it bad?

The one thing I'll say is there are varying degrees to all of this. An entirely free market is bad, just as a dictatorship is bad. We're debating changes that take us a fraction toward the "left" or "right", practicality over ideology.
On this point, I think Australia's health care system is great. Not perfect, but I'm happy to fund it, given the alternatives.

 

[Smurf1976]

If both parties consent to the arrangement, how is it bad?

Depending on individual circumstances the employer may have an order of magnitude more power in the relationship such that the “consent” is not voluntary in practice.

There are some top notch employers and managers out there but there are some real shockers too.

Put youself in the shoes of someone who works for company x, all is great and then new management comes in which brings misery to everyone. Employees who leave won’t get a reference from the boss and anyone who resists change will be managed out one way or another. End result = those who can’t afford to leave have no choice other than to “consent” to anything the management proposes.

So it’s like most laws. Necessary to protect the innocent from those who seek to do bad things even though such people are a minority. Same with most laws.

Through my working career thus far I’ve had mostly excellent managers but I’ve also, quite some time ago, had one who proudly boasted to the entire workforce that he was a steamroller and staff were the road about to be flattened. Those are the type who make such laws necessary.

 

[Klogg]

Depending on individual circumstances the employer may have an order of magnitude more power in the relationship such that the “consent” is not voluntary in practice.

There are some top notch employers and managers out there but there are some real shockers too.

Put youself in the shoes of someone who works for company x, all is great and then new management comes in which brings misery to everyone. Employees who leave won’t get a reference from the boss and anyone who resists change will be managed out one way or another. End result = those who can’t afford time out of work have no choice other than to “consent” to anything the management proposes.

So it’s like most laws. Necessary to protect the innocent from those who seek to do bad things even though such people are a minority. Same with most laws.

I have changed jobs tens of times (IT contractor) and need a reference for each one. Not every manager gives me a reference, it doesn't mean it's the end of the line. Every time I don't like the job due to change in management, I leave anyway.

The difference is I back myself, and realize it's my responsibility to change my circumstances. Sure, **** happens and sometimes it negatively impacts your life. But don't take it lying down.

As soon as you tell someone they're a victim and need protection, it reinforces the belief. I don't doubt some people need a form of protection, so Workchoices wasn't completely correct, but it seemed like a step in the right direction.

 

[Smurf1976]

I have changed jobs tens of times (IT contractor) and need a reference for each one. Not every manager gives me a reference, it doesn't mean it's the end of the line. Every time I don't like the job due to change in management, I leave anyway.

The difference is I back myself, and realize it's my responsibility to change my circumstances. Sure, **** happens and sometimes it negatively impacts your life. But don't take it lying down.

As soon as you tell someone they're a victim and need protection, it reinforces the belief. I don't doubt some people need a form of protection, so Workchoices wasn't completely correct, but it seemed like a step in the right direction.

I have changed jobs tens of times (IT contractor) and need a reference for each one. Not every manager gives me a reference, it doesn't mean it's the end of the line. Every time I don't like the job due to change in management, I leave anyway.

That’s all well and good but without being personal how big’s your mortgage and how many kids to suppoort?

For many, they’ll need the new employer to be pretty keen to make it work and that’s where things get difficult. Some will, many won’t.

I’m fortunate in that I can choose what I do and for whom with self employment as a fallback option but many are not so fortunate. They need that next pay and they need to keep some agreement regarding time of work or leave arrangements or whatever. That makes jumping ship a major exercise unless they can find a suitably agreeable employer who’ll bend the rules for a new employee in a run of the mill role. Some will, many won’t.

I do agree that being a victim is never helpful. That isn’t always the easiest thing though for those in that situation though.