this shows your world view, the govt owns all money and chooses to give it back when it chooses...
this shows your world view, the govt owns all money and chooses to give it back when it chooses... letting people keep more of their own money isnt a tax subsidy.. only economic cretins who belief in govt money multiplier BS would think so. Plundering is plundering no matter what legal form it takes..
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
Isn't it the bond holder's that own all (well most of) the money:?
Wow! Very insightful. Since you put in quotes, I am assuming you are quoting someone. How is that quote attributed to?
Meant to say who is the quote attributed to?
Actually I think most of the time its treasury that decides where the money comes from and goes to politicians generally wouldn't have a clue more so on the current opposition front bench god help us when they get their fingers in the till.
FlyingFox - a quick copy and paste of the quote put into a google search and about 5 seconds later here is your answer:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler
and this: http://www.markturner.net/2012/11/12/public-treasury-quote-is-bogus/
I hope the quote is not true - but it looks like Australia is heading down that path regardless of who actually may or may not have said it.
I would agree that the libs splashed the cash in the later years.
After paying down the huge debt incurred by Labor I think they were entitled to spend a bit to appease their supporters who had gone without while the debt was repaid.
The amazing waste of Labor since taking power is totally opposite, badly overdone and poorly aimed stimulation which has saddled the next generation with our debt so that Labor can look good.
Don't they like their own kids ?
Considering:
33% of the Labor debt was bequeathed to them by the Fraser Govt and treasurer Howard
75% of the ~ 96B in debt was paid via asset sales - considering the low interest rates paid by the Govt I would argue that selling an asset that pays a higher rate of return than your funding costs is not particularly smart.
.
It could be argued that single people, for example, need it even more since apart from food and clothing, their household costs aren't much lower than for a couple and yet they must survive on just one income rather than two.Smurf, I am talking about the much complained about "middle class welfare" to those with families here, not those who can be on welfare simply by keep having children.
The middle class would pay a fair chunk of tax revenue, I would think, and so I don't see what's wrong with giving a bit back to those who need it more than those who don't have kids. These people are already paying tax so no-one else is paying them to get a bit back.
It could be argued that single people, for example, need it even more since apart from food and clothing, their household costs aren't much lower than for a couple and yet they must survive on just one income rather than two.
Agreed in principle. But I was thinking largely of those without children - a working couple is far better off than a single can ever hope to be if all other things are equal.Someone who is gainfully employed (and we're talking about middle class here, so not exactly poor) should not be getting welfare. If you can't afford children, don't have children.
It's an amazing mentality that some people assume someone else should pay for them. Nanny state eat your heart out.
Someone who is gainfully employed (and we're talking about middle class here, so not exactly poor) should not be getting welfare. If you can't afford children, don't have children.
It's an amazing mentality that some people assume someone else should pay for them. Nanny state eat your heart out.
It's not that uncommon if my anecdotal experience of twelve or more years assessing people applying for emergency relief is any guide.It's the social engineering aspect many despise.
Encouraging those with limited finances to have children simply to grab the cash. How common it is is an arguable point, but it happens.
Sure. A single mother with four or five kids, especially if in public housing which they often are, is in a very financially advantageous situation. I'm damned if I see why it should be so.A woman I worked with not that long ago was not interested in working full time for a very simple reason. To work full time meant loss of benefits, such that's she'd effectively be working twice the hours for "free". That being so, sitting at home watching TV at the taxpayers' expense is the logical choice. Another example of the problems with welfare - the amount paid is so high that it's better than a paid job in some cases.
Agree overall, but perhaps Howard bringing in the GST was going some way toward this.+10.
No government today thinks past the next election. No one is willing to make the non-popular or difficult decisions.
So what's the point? If you want to buy votes of the middle class, just tax them a bit less in the first place, rather than take the tax then hand it back. (Not that I'm in favour of that either.)Smurf, I am talking about the much complained about "middle class welfare" to those with families here, not those who can be on welfare simply by keep having children.
The middle class would pay a fair chunk of tax revenue, I would think, and so I don't see what's wrong with giving a bit back to those who need it more than those who don't have kids. These people are already paying tax so no-one else is paying them to get a bit back.
+100. Couldn't agree more.Someone who is gainfully employed (and we're talking about middle class here, so not exactly poor) should not be getting welfare. If you can't afford children, don't have children.
It's an amazing mentality that some people assume someone else should pay for them. Nanny state eat your heart out.
Correct. Two incomes to pay the same non-discretionary household expenses.Agreed in principle. But I was thinking largely of those without children - a working couple is far better off than a single can ever hope to be if all other things are equal.
Agree overall, but perhaps Howard bringing in the GST was going some way toward this.
Someone who is gainfully employed (and we're talking about middle class here, so not exactly poor) should not be getting welfare. If you can't afford children, don't have children.
It's an amazing mentality that some people assume someone else should pay for them. Nanny state eat your heart out.
oh +1
the number of people having kids and then expecting to maintain the kind of lifestyle they had before is just gob smacking.
Though the whole baby bonus of the Libs probably encouraged the mentality that the Govt will support me as i pop them out.
If you can afford smart phones and play boxes, TVs in every bedroom then why do MY taxes go to subsidising YOUR lifestyle??
But wait, it was Howard who did this, so somehow it mustn't have been wasteful spending.
Personally, I know a lot of international students who would make far better Aussie citizens than a lot of those born here and get it by default. Far better to encourage students who have the drive and ambition to study in Australia, obtain a good mark to stay here. A lot of them came here because they see the benefits of the Australian way of life. Why push them to go home when they could add so much economically and socially to Australia?
This thread is busy.
The Libs must be really wasteful.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?