Buddy calls out criminalisation of Indigenous Australians

I’ve got lots of stats to support my views, just don’t have time to put them together. I’m not going to change your view either so it’s a waste of time. Your numbers are wrong too.

"I’ll repeat myself, again – it’s the working class who don’t pay enough tax, when you factor in the welfare they receive. They’re the people I would target." And I'll repeat myself again, put some numbers to it. We have already established a family with a combined income of less than half of what your taxable income receives $0 in "welfare" and pays about $30k in tax so where does this "working class" start and stop for you? The only proposal you have so far put forward decreases tax on everyone except the very poor. "I think overall we pay too much income tax in this country for the quality of government we get." And yet we haven't had a budget surplus in well over a decade and have a great standard of living and have had close to 30 years without a recession. Not sure your opinion stands up to the facts. "There’s the 3 tier system (I’d go to a federal government and province/county type set up), and all the duplication that goes along with it." Provide evidence of the duplication. And who provides the education and health? How are the county's funded? "here’s the ridiculous red and green tape that’s holding this country back." Yes Donald. 30 years of constant growth would argue against your position but please provide examples. "There’s the outrageous salaries for bureaucrats in what is effectively a closed shop." Again please provide examples. The prime Minister earns just twice as much as you doe $540k - is he doing 1/8 the work of the CEO of the CBA? How do you apply for the job of CEO of a bank - surely there is an open application process. Are there bureaucrats earning more than the PM? You earn considerably more than the average Victorian Parliamentarian. Dan Andrews earns $440k. "There’s the overly complicated tax system (that could be simplified with the stroke of a pen, effectively wiping out the majority of the staff in the ATO)." Explain how? The federal govt cut $1.5b from the public service in the 2019 budget, The Abbott Govt 2014-15 budget had $569m in public service cuts over the following 4 years after the Gillard govt had also made cuts. How much more do you think there is to find? Its funny how the more you are pushed the more you sound like you should be on 2gb.

I'll repeat myself, again - it's the working class who don't pay enough tax, when you factor in the welfare they receive. They're the people I would target. I think overall we pay too much income tax in this country for the quality of government we get. I agree that our services are fantastic in this country, and many people don't know how good they've got it, but there's an inordinate amount of waste and churn for naught. There's the 3 tier system (I'd go to a federal government and province/county type set up), and all the duplication that goes along with it. There's the pork-barrelling by governments of all persuasions. There's the ridiculous red and green tape that's holding this country back. There's the outrageous salaries for bureaucrats in what is effectively a closed shop. There's the overly complicated tax system (that could be simplified with the stroke of a pen, effectively wiping out the majority of the staff in the ATO). I reckon I could cut 10% from public spending with no discernible difference to the man on the street. That money could be used for actual nation-building projects instead of the confetti that it's used for now.

“I didn’t say how I would structure the government – don’t make assumptions Macca.” The only assumption I made was that you would keep the federal govt – one example I gave was getting rid of local, the other was getting rid of state – either way ther are things they do you don’t want at any other level. ” I get to keep a little over half of what I earn above 180k!” You got to keep $170k out of $270k (plus whatever loopholes you used to minimise tax) – that is a lot more than 50% and you get great quality health care, education (including a tertiary education system open to anyone based on merit), a quality social safety net, etc etc ” You sound like one of those socialists who think the default position should be that the government owns everything and then they benevolently give some money back to the plebs.” Nope, quite the opposite. The plebs give to the govt in order for the govt to provide services to the plebs. The plebs are the masters. “People like you scare me.” – “We all fear what we do not understand.” Anytime you want to put some figures to you flat tax plan that doesn’t involve everyone bar the very poor paying less tax and bankrupting the govt I am all ears.

So many quotes. You should've just copied and pasted my comment. I didn't say how I would structure the government - don't make assumptions Macca. Lucky me, I get to keep a little over half of what I earn above 180k! You sound like one of those socialists who think the default position should be that the government owns everything and then they benevolently give some money back to the plebs. People like you scare me.

“Low income earners are definitely not working as hard as bank executives. They clock off after their 7.6 hours a day and go home and forget about work” LOL, no low income earner is a small business owner. No Low income earner does overtime. No low income earner thinks about their job outside of work hours. “I don’t feel persecuted or that I’m a victim” and yet you think you are being “punished” by an unfair system. “Reducing my tax by $40k is very fair to me; I’d still contribute $57k more than you.” But you are now paying 4.2 times my tax take rather than 3.9 – under your logic it is less fair. “There’s a lot more people on you wage than on mine so they would make up the difference ” but people on my wage are paying less as well – how is that going to make up the difference? The only people paying more tax under your scheme would be those on less than around $30k, you know the people who earn less than the amount of money you would “save” in tax. “Why bother to strive for a higher wage when you lose your benefits and pay more tax?” Because even at above $180k you are still keeping 53c of every dollar you earn. You are being punished by paying 4 times my tax rate despite on “earning” 3 times as much but you are still taking home $100k more than I am – that is why you strive for the extra income – becasue yuo end up much better off. “The trade-off isn’t worth it for most families at the moment; it’s easier just to live off people like me.” But your not a victim are you. “I would advocate for a lower overall tax take if I had that responsibility, but I would offset it by cutting a huge amount of inefficiency and wasteful spending that is our government structure. For example, we pay for 3 levels of government and we only need 2.” Ahh yes all this wasted money on red tape. In the last 24 years 18 of them have been Liberal govt’s determined to make govt smaller and cut red tape – yet you think there is billions and billions still to be saved. If you think it is more efficient to have state govt’s collecting the rubbish and running or federal govt’s running the schools and health care you are dreaming. REducing income taxes in the order you want simply reduces services and forces more costs on to the individual so you disposable income doesn’t really change, just who you pay it to does. As I said, I am happy paying 1/4 of what I earn in tax and taking home $100k less than you do – why do you find life so hard?

Low income earners are definitely not working as hard as bank executives. They clock off after their 7.6 hours a day and go home and forget about work; they have little skills and responsibility other than turning up to work every day and their only concern is their immediate work area. The bank executive is owned by the company, probably spends large amounts of time away from home, is highly knowledgeable and specialised, and has huge responsibility. That's why their pay packets are vastly different. I think we both agree that low income earners should keep more of their pay; we just believe in different tax structures to generate the revenue required for government to do their job. I would advocate for a lower overall tax take if I had that responsibility, but I would offset it by cutting a huge amount of inefficiency and wasteful spending that is our government structure. For example, we pay for 3 levels of government and we only need 2. I don't feel persecuted or that I'm a victim; I've written it several times that I think that the system is not fair. Reducing my tax by $40k is very fair to me; I'd still contribute $57k more than you. There's a lot more people on you wage than on mine so they would make up the difference - the load would be shared by those who are capable of sharing it rather than by only a few. What's fairer than that? The other benefit would be people would be encouraged to strive for a higher pay; at the moment the trade-off isn't worth it; you've said it yourself. Why bother to strive for a higher wage when you lose your benefits and pay more tax? The trade-off isn't worth it for most families at the moment; it's easier just to live off people like me.

SO what rate above and below $50k? lets run the numbers. If we said what 10% below $50k and 30% above $50k I would pay around $17k while you would pay $71k and the govt would be out of pocket close to $40k. Doesn't solve the fairness issues and creates a massive budget blackhole. And your an accountant earning close to $300k but you don't use any loopholes? You need to have a chat to your employer and look into grabbing yourself a highly geared investment property. I don't believe those on above average income are "lucky" but I do think you lose the ability to play the victim when you are earning more than 3 times the national average. "I don’t for one second believe that everyone who is a low income earner is “less fortunate” - no there would be a fair proportion of high income earners relatives being used to soak up the low tax rate thresholds. "I certainly don’t believe a world where we’re all equal and everyone is well off is remotely possible." Neither do I, but allowing a low income earner to keep a bigger percentage of their earnings than a high income earner isn't trying to achieve that. "it’s that those who have worked hard shouldn’t be punished for it." It is telling that you believe only the high income earners "have worked hard" for their income. It is odd that you think the person making minimum wage is working less hard than the bank exec on a lazy few million. It is also telling that you perceive not being given the advantages the low income earners are afforded means you are being punished (as if everyone but the one having the birthday is being punished rather than just that one person being given a gift). Why it is do you think that I earn 1/3 of you income lose roughly a quarter of in tax and I am not jealous of those earning less than me paying less net tax yet you who lose roughly a 1/3 of your more than 3 times the average income feel persecuted? Why is it you are earning in one year the same as I paid for my house and yet you feel hard done by?

I don't use any loopholes; that's why I pay so much tax. The reason I suggest the $50k threshold (not a tax-free threshold, the rate would increase above $50k and remain flat thereafter) is that low income earners need to be helped out. Under my method those with the means to pay more still pay more. They should, and they do, but it should be fair for all. My argument isn't that those who aren't able should be shafted, it's that those who have worked hard shouldn't be punished for it. We obviously have different world views; I don't for one second believe that everyone who is a low income earner is "less fortunate" and those who are above average earners only do so because they are "lucky", but I suspect you do. I don't believe in equality of outcome, and I certainly don't believe a world where we're all equal and everyone is well off is remotely possible.

Missing the point again, I am assuming you are earning MORE THAN 3 times what I earn, you simply use the various loopholes at your disposal (that I don't use) to avoid paying tax on significant sums or at the very least reducing the rate those sums are taxed at. And you and I have very different views of what is "fair". For your view of "fairness" to apply there would have to be a flat rate of tax applied from the first dollar earned (as discussed above you $50k tax free threshold and flat rate above that doesn't make things more fair for you) - I don't think it is fair that someone earning $30k a year loses $10k of it in tax just so someone earning 10 times that doesn't feel hard done by paying 30% of their taxable income in tax. My idea of fair is that those with the means pay more to help out those less fortunate. I think it is fair that those on low incomes get govt support and those on high incomes don't. I think "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

Yep, so I should pay 3 times the tax you. That’s the crux of my argument. That’s fair.

We can survive without our biggest trading partner? :laughing:

:unhappy: That’s what you take away from that entire post. I am suggesting that you earn more money than you pay tax on, I am suggesting you take advantage of the tax rules (and good on you) and minimise you tax. I am suggesting that while you pay 4 times the tax I do you earn more than the 3 times my income you pay tax on.

Are you suggesting that I dint deserve my pay? I’m very good at my job.

And please explain how the deal is a national security risk. Justify your claims. The agreement is available online so any interested party can educate themselves exactly what the Vic Government has agreed to.

It’s a link to an interview with a minister spruiking it. Rubbish because you don’t want to hear it?

Absolute rubbish. Not worthy of a reply.

I don’t support WA dealing with China for starters.We can and sell and survive without them. Andrews deal is a National Security Risk that can bankrupt your state. You have not a clue whatsoever what is going on by liking Brain Without a Stations comment. You two obviously think the federal govt. have signed up to this shows you have not even engaged in the news this week and pretend you know any thing.What planet do you live on. Stick to footy comments might be a good idea.

Just shows how immature you are macca.

How cute, you think the Chinese communist regime has different groups with different rules and agendas. :laughing: The WA Chinese mates are the same ones the Vic govt is dealing with. Andrews just isn't taking the cash for commodities but wanting more than a hole in the ground.