The Politics Thread 2017

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
gangrenous
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6957
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous » February 13, 2018, 9:10 pm

T_R wrote:
gangrenous wrote:
February 13, 2018, 9:02 pm
To be honest, I don’t hold out much hope. I don’t think working can save the other answers.
Baby steps

To be fair, I did actually give my actual answer about 4 or 5 pages back.
When was that exactly? I only recall factually incorrect posts and question dodging?

User avatar
gangrenous
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6957
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous » February 13, 2018, 9:14 pm

T_R wrote: We're not. I'm severely unmotivated to be at work today, have a distractingly wet and sticky crotch, and am lobbing grenades up at anyone who I think might respond to me.
It’d have to be this one

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14227
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » February 13, 2018, 9:16 pm

gangrenous wrote:
February 13, 2018, 9:14 pm
T_R wrote: We're not. I'm severely unmotivated to be at work today, have a distractingly wet and sticky crotch, and am lobbing grenades up at anyone who I think might respond to me.
It’d have to be this one
:lol: You're on fire.

Actually, I think I fobbed you off with 'As much as they can legitimately earn while still making an equitable contribution to society' or something. Can't remember the exact syntax. Weasel words, anyway.

notaroboticfish certainly responded :D :D
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 115186
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by greeneyed » February 13, 2018, 11:47 pm

Well this is thread is going well isn’t it!
Image

User avatar
gangrenous
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6957
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous » February 14, 2018, 5:42 am

Well, we’ve established a few things:
* Everyone is pretty keen on tax reform.
* I think everyone is keen to tax churches.
* Luckily papabear is not an Australian dictator, he would create a wealthy people’s utopia and probably collapse society.
* The top 20% do not pay 100% of the tax.
* Manbush can’t let drugs go, ever.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14227
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » February 14, 2018, 5:58 am

greeneyed wrote:
February 13, 2018, 11:47 pm
Well this is thread is going well isn’t it!
Wheels are completely off.

How long till season kick off?
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
gangrenous
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6957
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous » February 14, 2018, 6:20 am

Notaroboticfish is the best person to ask normally, but I’m pretty sure you’ve torched that bridge.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14227
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » February 14, 2018, 6:53 am

gangrenous wrote:Notaroboticfish is the best person to ask normally, but I’m pretty sure you’ve torched that bridge.
Please don't explain my jokes to me, gangrenous :D
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
gangrenous
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6957
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous » February 14, 2018, 7:18 am

Sorry, just got caught up in explaining everything else to you I guess [emoji13]

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24211
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Manbush » February 14, 2018, 7:46 am

gangrenous wrote:
February 14, 2018, 5:42 am
Well, we’ve established a few things:
* Everyone is pretty keen on tax reform.
* I think everyone is keen to tax churches.
* Luckily papabear is not an Australian dictator, he would create a wealthy people’s utopia and probably collapse society.
* The top 20% do not pay 100% of the tax.
* Manbush can’t let drugs go, ever.
If we’re talking economy it makes sense, states in America are making a killing from them as would Australia through taxes and new boom industries not to mention environmental benefits. :)
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Northern Raider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 18804
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Luke Turner
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Northern Raider » February 14, 2018, 7:48 am

greeneyed wrote:
February 13, 2018, 11:47 pm
Well this is thread is going well isn’t it!
I've actually lost track of what everybody's arguments are.

....and with so many strawmen showing up I wouldn't risk lighting a lighting up a smoke.
Head to Head
Luke Turner - 1
Blake Ferguson - 0

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14227
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » February 14, 2018, 7:58 am

gangrenous wrote:
February 14, 2018, 7:18 am
Sorry, just got caught up in explaining everything else to you I guess [emoji13]
:lol: Is this just you, or are you working with a team?
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
papabear
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5803
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by papabear » February 14, 2018, 8:00 am

gangrenous wrote:
February 14, 2018, 5:42 am
Well, we’ve established a few things:
* Everyone is pretty keen on tax reform.
* I think everyone is keen to tax churches.
* Luckily papabear is not an Australian dictator, he would create a wealthy people’s utopia and probably collapse society.
* The top 20% do not pay 100% of the tax.
* Manbush can’t let drugs go, ever.

A utopia where everyone is better off through their new found motivation.

LO and behold the trains would even run on time.

User avatar
papabear
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5803
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by papabear » February 14, 2018, 8:11 am

gangrenous wrote:
February 13, 2018, 9:10 pm
T_R wrote:
gangrenous wrote:
February 13, 2018, 9:02 pm
To be honest, I don’t hold out much hope. I don’t think working can save the other answers.
Baby steps

To be fair, I did actually give my actual answer about 4 or 5 pages back.
When was that exactly? I only recall factually incorrect posts and question dodging?
He did answer you with as much as some can legitimately earn.

Perhaps you read it and it didn’t satisfy as you wanted a number or perhaps it was you missing the detail.

Believe it or not people don’t get to caught up with what wealth percentile they are in. It’s more about having a fair set of rules.

Right now our tax system is like telling papalii that the rules say everyone as strong and powerful as him have to play on one leg, you know make it easier for Moses to give him a cuddle.

User avatar
papabear
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5803
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by papabear » February 14, 2018, 8:11 am

gangrenous wrote:
February 13, 2018, 9:10 pm
T_R wrote:
gangrenous wrote:
February 13, 2018, 9:02 pm
To be honest, I don’t hold out much hope. I don’t think working can save the other answers.
Baby steps

To be fair, I did actually give my actual answer about 4 or 5 pages back.
When was that exactly? I only recall factually incorrect posts and question dodging?
He did answer you with as much as some can legitimately earn.

Perhaps you read it and it didn’t satisfy as you wanted a number or perhaps it was you missing the detail.

Believe it or not people don’t get to caught up with what wealth percentile they are in. It’s more about having a fair set of rules.

Right now our tax system is like telling papalii that the rules say everyone as strong and powerful as him have to play on one leg, you know make it easier for Moses to give him a cuddle.

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24211
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Manbush » February 14, 2018, 8:18 am

Do other states have issues with trains, in Brisbane I’d say my experience is they’re on time 95% of the time.

Side note good to see Barnaby possibly being pushed out.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24211
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Manbush » February 14, 2018, 8:22 am

papabear wrote:
February 14, 2018, 8:11 am

Believe it or not people don’t get to caught up with what wealth percentile they are in. It’s more about having a fair set of rules.
:lol:
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14227
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » February 14, 2018, 9:07 am

papabear wrote: He did answer you with as much as some can legitimately earn.
I was wrong. The answer had to be expressed in precise percentages.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 18804
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Luke Turner
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Northern Raider » February 14, 2018, 10:12 am

People want fairness in regards to income tax. Realistically what could be fairer than a flatter system? Everybody pays their fair share relative to their earnings. Somebody alluded to it earlier (dibbers?) that the wage market would adjust accordingly as its more about net income than gross. What you would get less of a spread between low and high wage earners i.e. wages for higher earners would generally be lower and low earner higher.

Unfortunately the current tax brackets are ingrained and the wage market is relatively set. Makes it virtually impossible to change from the current structure. Flatter income tax rates would need to be in place from the start if you wanted it to be reflected in wages.
Head to Head
Luke Turner - 1
Blake Ferguson - 0

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14227
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » February 14, 2018, 11:11 am

Northern Raider wrote:
February 14, 2018, 10:12 am
People want fairness in regards to income tax. Realistically what could be fairer than a flatter system? Everybody pays their fair share relative to their earnings. Somebody alluded to it earlier (dibbers?) that the wage market would adjust accordingly as its more about net income than gross. What you would get less of a spread between low and high wage earners i.e. wages for higher earners would generally be lower and low earner higher.
You know you're just going to set gangrenous off again, right?
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12092
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Green eyed Mick » February 14, 2018, 11:24 am

Northern Raider wrote:
February 14, 2018, 10:12 am
People want fairness in regards to income tax. Realistically what could be fairer than a flatter system? Everybody pays their fair share relative to their earnings. Somebody alluded to it earlier (dibbers?) that the wage market would adjust accordingly as its more about net income than gross. What you would get less of a spread between low and high wage earners i.e. wages for higher earners would generally be lower and low earner higher.

Unfortunately the current tax brackets are ingrained and the wage market is relatively set. Makes it virtually impossible to change from the current structure. Flatter income tax rates would need to be in place from the start if you wanted it to be reflected in wages.
A progressive tax system is fairer than a flat tax system.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 18804
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Luke Turner
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Northern Raider » February 14, 2018, 11:29 am

Green eyed Mick wrote:
February 14, 2018, 11:24 am
Northern Raider wrote:
February 14, 2018, 10:12 am
People want fairness in regards to income tax. Realistically what could be fairer than a flatter system? Everybody pays their fair share relative to their earnings. Somebody alluded to it earlier (dibbers?) that the wage market would adjust accordingly as its more about net income than gross. What you would get less of a spread between low and high wage earners i.e. wages for higher earners would generally be lower and low earner higher.

Unfortunately the current tax brackets are ingrained and the wage market is relatively set. Makes it virtually impossible to change from the current structure. Flatter income tax rates would need to be in place from the start if you wanted it to be reflected in wages.
A progressive tax system is fairer than a flat tax system.
Flatter, not flat. Anyway responding to this one line in my post has totally ignored to context around it.
Head to Head
Luke Turner - 1
Blake Ferguson - 0

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14227
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » February 14, 2018, 11:38 am

Northern Raider wrote: Anyway responding to this one line in my post has totally ignored to context around it.
It's what made the politics thread great.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 18804
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Luke Turner
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Northern Raider » February 14, 2018, 11:45 am

T_R wrote:
February 14, 2018, 11:38 am
Northern Raider wrote: Anyway responding to this one line in my post has totally ignored to context around it.
It's what made the politics thread great.
touche
Head to Head
Luke Turner - 1
Blake Ferguson - 0

User avatar
Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12092
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Green eyed Mick » February 14, 2018, 12:17 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
February 14, 2018, 11:29 am
Green eyed Mick wrote:
February 14, 2018, 11:24 am
Northern Raider wrote:
February 14, 2018, 10:12 am
People want fairness in regards to income tax. Realistically what could be fairer than a flatter system? Everybody pays their fair share relative to their earnings. Somebody alluded to it earlier (dibbers?) that the wage market would adjust accordingly as its more about net income than gross. What you would get less of a spread between low and high wage earners i.e. wages for higher earners would generally be lower and low earner higher.

Unfortunately the current tax brackets are ingrained and the wage market is relatively set. Makes it virtually impossible to change from the current structure. Flatter income tax rates would need to be in place from the start if you wanted it to be reflected in wages.
A progressive tax system is fairer than a flat tax system.
Flatter, not flat. Anyway responding to this one line in my post has totally ignored to context around it.
A flatter tax system wouldn't make things fairer, it will further entrench systemic inequality. This is self-evident for anyone with a reasonable grasp of economic reality.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14227
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » February 14, 2018, 12:19 pm

Green eyed Mick wrote:
February 14, 2018, 12:17 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
February 14, 2018, 11:29 am
Green eyed Mick wrote:
February 14, 2018, 11:24 am
Northern Raider wrote:
February 14, 2018, 10:12 am
People want fairness in regards to income tax. Realistically what could be fairer than a flatter system? Everybody pays their fair share relative to their earnings. Somebody alluded to it earlier (dibbers?) that the wage market would adjust accordingly as its more about net income than gross. What you would get less of a spread between low and high wage earners i.e. wages for higher earners would generally be lower and low earner higher.

Unfortunately the current tax brackets are ingrained and the wage market is relatively set. Makes it virtually impossible to change from the current structure. Flatter income tax rates would need to be in place from the start if you wanted it to be reflected in wages.
A progressive tax system is fairer than a flat tax system.
Flatter, not flat. Anyway responding to this one line in my post has totally ignored to context around it.
A flatter tax system wouldn't make things fairer, it will further entrench systemic inequality. This is self-evident for anyone with a reasonable grasp of economic reality.
How come GEM doesn't get a serve for being smug and superior? It's completely unfair. He's every BIT as smug as I am.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 18804
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Luke Turner
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Northern Raider » February 14, 2018, 12:39 pm

Green eyed Mick wrote:
February 14, 2018, 12:17 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
February 14, 2018, 11:29 am
Green eyed Mick wrote:
February 14, 2018, 11:24 am
Northern Raider wrote:
February 14, 2018, 10:12 am
People want fairness in regards to income tax. Realistically what could be fairer than a flatter system? Everybody pays their fair share relative to their earnings. Somebody alluded to it earlier (dibbers?) that the wage market would adjust accordingly as its more about net income than gross. What you would get less of a spread between low and high wage earners i.e. wages for higher earners would generally be lower and low earner higher.

Unfortunately the current tax brackets are ingrained and the wage market is relatively set. Makes it virtually impossible to change from the current structure. Flatter income tax rates would need to be in place from the start if you wanted it to be reflected in wages.
A progressive tax system is fairer than a flat tax system.
Flatter, not flat. Anyway responding to this one line in my post has totally ignored to context around it.
A flatter tax system wouldn't make things fairer, it will further entrench systemic inequality. This is self-evident for anyone with a reasonable grasp of economic reality.
Either you didn't read my whole post or you didn't understand it.
Head to Head
Luke Turner - 1
Blake Ferguson - 0

User avatar
Dibbers
Dean Lance
Posts: 869
Joined: November 4, 2010, 1:11 pm
Favourite Player: Brad Clyde

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Dibbers » February 14, 2018, 1:20 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
February 14, 2018, 12:39 pm

Either you didn't read my whole post or you didn't understand it.
It was me that mentioned the lower wages for current high income earners if we had a flat system. And i understand where you're coming from in principle, but the practicalities just don't stack up for mine.

Even "flattening" the system would have a whole host of flow on effects. Services that were considered "cheap" by a higher earner would need to be more expensive to compensate for the increased wages of the lower income workers, meaning less people would be able to afford them, meaning less lower income jobs.

And despite Papa's new "motivated" work force, there aren't enough well paying jobs for everyone to achieve, you'll always need people on the lower end of the wage scale... so, at least in my head, it isn't possible.

I don't doubt that there are better ways for our tax system to be set up, and maybe some changes to other area's will enable the "flattening" of the tax rate in the future, but it will be a long long long road to get to this point without severely damaging the economy as a whole and forcing a hell of a lot of people to earn less than a livable wage. For a start, Rent's/house prices will need to come down. Public Transport and fuel costs too. if you're going to rip a chunk out of the least paid peoples take home pay, how do you expect them to afford a place to live and transport to/from work?
I found a moon rock in my nose....

User avatar
Northern Raider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 18804
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Luke Turner
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Northern Raider » February 14, 2018, 1:31 pm

Dibbers I don't disagree with what you're saying. Its part of the reasoning behind my 2nd paragraph saying it would be virtually impossible to change to it from the current structure. My point was about perception of fairness. Equality is everybody paying the same % tax and earning the same wage. It just can't happen in reality.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Head to Head
Luke Turner - 1
Blake Ferguson - 0

User avatar
Dibbers
Dean Lance
Posts: 869
Joined: November 4, 2010, 1:11 pm
Favourite Player: Brad Clyde

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Dibbers » February 14, 2018, 1:51 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
February 14, 2018, 1:31 pm
Dibbers I don't disagree with what you're saying. Its part of the reasoning behind my 2nd paragraph saying it would be virtually impossible to change to it from the current structure. My point was about perception of fairness. Equality is everybody paying the same % tax and earning the same wage. It just can't happen in reality.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Sorry, i didn't mean to make out like i was disagreeing with you, i was more trying to emphasise the point you were making and add to it.

Even if it did start out being a flat tax rate, the higher income earners would still be complaining that they pay more tax and the lower income earners get all the govt assistance...

Man I wish i earned enough to be complaining about people getting more Childcare assistance then me...
I found a moon rock in my nose....

User avatar
Northern Raider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 18804
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Luke Turner
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Northern Raider » February 14, 2018, 2:30 pm

Yeah but every level complains about how much tax they pay compared to others. Its not the exclusive domain of high earners. :)
Head to Head
Luke Turner - 1
Blake Ferguson - 0

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24211
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Manbush » February 14, 2018, 4:03 pm

T_R wrote:
February 14, 2018, 12:19 pm


How come GEM doesn't get a serve for being smug and superior? It's completely unfair. He's every BIT as smug as I am.
Modesty doesn’t suit you mate, you know you’re number one so embrace it.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 115186
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by greeneyed » February 14, 2018, 4:05 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
February 14, 2018, 2:30 pm
Yeah but every level complains about how much tax they pay compared to others. Its not the exclusive domain of high earners. :)
I suspect a lot of those people don’t get they are not net contributors to the tax and welfare system.
Image

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14227
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » February 14, 2018, 4:09 pm

greeneyed wrote:
Northern Raider wrote:
February 14, 2018, 2:30 pm
Yeah but every level complains about how much tax they pay compared to others. Its not the exclusive domain of high earners. :)
I suspect a lot of those people don’t get they are not net contributors to the tax and welfare system.
Look, Gangrenous has made this clear....you pay $12, I pay $10, the government makes $40, we fully fund medicare but you've somehow paid less than me and then some other stuff happens, I turn into a goose and then it's cocaine and high class escorts all round.

It's basic economics.




Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 115186
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by greeneyed » February 14, 2018, 4:28 pm

This shows 40 per cent of Australians pay no net tax, once welfare is factored in: http://resources.news.com.au/files/2016 ... 213tax.pdf

There are 3.6 million households that are net beneficiaries of the tax and transfer system out of 8.8 million and among the 1.9 million working age households, 608,509 of these are couples with dependent children.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation ... 48829f3dfe

I suspect this would come as a big surprise to most Australians.
Image

Post Reply