Im no expert, but I have an idea for taxes (1 Viewer)

[SylviaB]

If the public chooses, by sheer majority the unnecessary things will pop out as people dont pick them.

what people will pick is middle class welfare, which is absolutely unnecessary

 

[Lolsmith]

Then lets go for elimination of all the "tiny" things, that will save a shitload of cash already. That is somewhat the main point here, going a step at a time to cut down on the loads and loads of "tiny" things so we can keep the "big and important" things, though if there are pointless "big and important things" we can eliminate them too. ITS NOT JUST CUTTING DOWN ON MONEY FOR ABORIGINALS its cutting down on EVERYTHING that is not helping the WHOLE COMMUNITY but only a small group of people or individuals.

So you mean just like healthcare and education only help a certain group of people or individuals

 

[darkfenrir]

what people will pick is middle class welfare, which is absolutely unnecessary

Ok here you have stumped me, I have no response.

 

[darkfenrir]

So you mean just like healthcare and education only help a certain group of people or individuals

Dude have u not been listening??? I specifically said KEEP all things that help everyone LIKE healthcare and education etc, and ELIMINATE things for individuals and groups specifically. Welfare is one of those things for individuals etc, which is where sylviaB stumped me. I can only think of establishing a system where people must fall below a certain benchmark of critical need before they are considered for welfare. If you can still survive on the money you have, you dont need welfare. Welfare should be for those people who have been thoroughly researched and classified as completely cash free.

As jenny macklin said, it is perfectly fucking possible to live on 35 dollars a day, some lazy aussie shits think they are "entitled" to more which is bullshit, you get as much as you need to survive and ONLY if you're 100 percent fucking broke.

My parents are both surgeons and we went on a 4 day holiday to coffs, keep in mind we fed ALL FOUR of us on one of the days, where we had cereal for breakfast ($4.50 a box of weetbix, $2.54 for a litre bottle of milk) then for lunch we had a roast chicken, two boxes of mini tomatoes (2x$3.00) and two long baguette things (~2X$3.00) then for dinner we went through a kilo of lychees and and two apples and two kiwis each. That's 8 apples (8x$0.54) and $8 worth of lychees and 8 kiwis (8x$0.96)

Now, total price for 4 people? YES, FOUR!!!
=$39.04!!!
for one person thats 9 fucking dollars and 76 fucking cents. Aussies need to learn they are NOT entitled to so much cash and they DONT need as much as they think.

The reason I mentioned my parents occupation is to show that they DONT go all fucking fancy just cos they're surgeons, and to show that we didn't have a day like this cos we're poor. We're not.

And if someone is going to go into the whole calorie thing of 8700 kilojoules a day and that food didn't provide it, just check out the calories on weetbix peeps. Besides that, clinical studies have shown that people LIVE LONGER and HEALTHIER on a lower intake of calories. Australia needs to understand this.

FOUR PEOPLE on less than 40 dollars. Come on.

 

[Newbie]

i dont know where we are going with this but i want to say one thing: Most people in Asia are astounded when they hear about:

1) the level of taxes we pay
2) centerlink and how generous it is

the standard of living in Asia is pretty atrocious, where its much more of a "eat what you kill" society
but one positive is that people take responsibility for themselves, spend prudently, work harder, save more. because theres no safety net to catch you.

i think australia needs some of that and i think we can start by reducing centerlink's budget and the burden on tax payers from social welfare.
throwing money at lazy people isnt a good spending for my tax dollars and doesnt fit into my view of what improves society in the long run.

hence my first point on abos, no free sht anymore. niggas need to get an even playing field, need to go to school, get training and get to work, pay taxes, contribute to society rather than being a burden

 

[funkshen]

yes, that is an excellent point. we have much to learn from those poverty stricken asians.

also yes it is completely reasonable to expect someone to live on $35 (add on ~$15 with rent assistance) because in one day your family had some weetbix with milk, a roast chicken, some cherry tomatoes and some bread, and some fruit for dinner (sounds like a great day m8 real nutritious). i mean, it's not like people should ever need 1) to save any money 2) to meet any ancillary medical expenses like dental or prescription medicines 3) to pay utilities 4) anything else one might expect the average person needs to have a modicum of enjoyment in their life

and yes, it's no revelation that there is a toxic culture of antagonism vis a vis whitey, and idleness in many aboriginal communities, both urban and rural. the incredible wit and incisiveness of any suggestion to cut these slackers off from the teat of productive society cannot be denied!

it never fails to blow my fucking mind when people try (and fail) to engage with the philosophy of social democracy or liberalism, or the business of government, absent any appreciation of history or context, and with such incredulous moral impertinence. the fatuousness of this thread is malignant.

 

[Newbie]

these asians are the same folks buying up australia's resources and taking over shit. they must be doing something right.

i think theres a clear division of opinions in this thread, between the people who work and pay tax and the people who studied arts. mutually exclusive.

 

[funkshen]

these asians are the same folks buying up australia's resources and taking over shit. they must be doing something right.

i think theres a clear division of opinions in this thread, between the people who work and pay tax and the people who studied arts. mutually exclusive.

yes

 

[darkfenrir]

yes, that is an excellent point. we have much to learn from those poverty stricken asians.

also yes it is completely reasonable to expect someone to live on $35 (add on ~$15 with rent assistance) because in one day your family had some weetbix with milk, a roast chicken, some cherry tomatoes and some bread, and some fruit for dinner (sounds like a great day m8 real nutritious). i mean, it's not like people should ever need 1) to save any money 2) to meet any ancillary medical expenses like dental or prescription medicines 3) to pay utilities 4) anything else one might expect the average person needs to have a modicum of enjoyment in their life

and yes, it's no revelation that there is a toxic culture of antagonism vis a vis whitey, and idleness in many aboriginal communities, both urban and rural. the incredible wit and incisiveness of any suggestion to cut these slackers off from the teat of productive society cannot be denied!

it never fails to blow my fucking mind when people try (and fail) to engage with the philosophy of social democracy or liberalism, or the business of government, absent any appreciation of history or context, and with such incredulous moral impertinence. the fatuousness of this thread is malignant.

food wise, you can live on less than 10 dollars per person. My case proves at least that. I realise I completely forgot about all your other points lol so yes MAYBE the whole 25 remaining dollars will be entirely used up, but even so then, let 35 dollars be the allround total which people can survive on. Jenny macklin is absolutely right in that respect. When they were saying her comments were outrageous, I think the stupidity of those people is outrageous.

Simply, problems need to be fixed. What other ways are we to eliminate wasteful spending by the government? the blown money is infinitely more valuable to the country if spent properly.

 

[funkshen]

food wise, you can live on less than 10 dollars per person. My case proves at least that. I realise I completely forgot about all your other points lol so yes MAYBE the whole 25 remaining dollars will be entirely used up, but even so then, let 35 dollars be the allround total which people can survive on. Jenny macklin is absolutely right in that respect. When they were saying her comments were outrageous, I think the stupidity of those people is outrageous.

Simply, problems need to be fixed. What other ways are we to eliminate wasteful spending by the government? the blown money is infinitely more valuable to the country if spent properly.

if you had any evidence of wasteful spending that needed or could be eliminated or streamlined maybe we could all have a fruitful discussion. i have no concern with the amount paid through youth allowance (which is not that much less than newstart) considering most students are able to find supplementary employment, or live at home. but the notion that the amount paid through newstart is sufficient and doesn't have the potential to reinforce cycles of poverty and its detrimental effects on personal health is absurd.

 

[Newbie]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eckless-25s-declares-war-welfare-culture.html

this guys trying to do it. too bad he wont survive the next election. these policies never do

 

[funkshen]

everyone knows that the UK is going down the toilet though

 

[ahdil33]

True democracy is terrible. People aren't educated enough in matters of economics and politics, so would just make stupid decisions. Only an intelligent, well educated few should rule.

 

[enak101]

Besides the obvious difficulties of implementing this idea, I agree with the point "what people need and what people think they need" can be different.

Also, who is going to be bothered to go through every subject area and expenditure and ticking x amount of boxes. People would just tick the first three or something like that.

 

[funkshen]

why do people think that large groups of people are any more likely to make better decisions if they're educated

 

[darkfenrir]

True democracy is terrible. People aren't educated enough in matters of economics and politics, so would just make stupid decisions. Only an intelligent, well educated few should rule.

Yes, this is why we keep critical economic funds, only release the option of cancelling superficial and unnecessary ones. It doesnt seem I am getting through to everyone.


1. IMPORTANT ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL FUNDS WOULD BE PERMANENT,
2. THE TAXPAYER DOES NOT HAVE CHOICE OVER THE ENTIRE BUDGET, ONLY A SELECT FEW AREAS. SELECT FEW!!! NOT THE WHOLE FUCKING BUDGET!! A HIGHLY INTRICATE MODERATION PROCESS WILL BE IN PLACE
3. EDUCATION IN POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IS IRRELEVANT, AS STATED IN POINT 1, THE FUNDS THAT MAKE OR BREAK A COUNTRY WILL REMAIN CONSTANT
4. AUSTRALIANS WILL ONLY HAVE A CHOICE OF FUNDS WHICH ARE NEGLIGIBLE IN THEIR INFLUENCE OF THE ECONOMY AS A WHOLE


You guys keep arguing things which I have ALREADY REPLIED TO.

Read it.

 

[Lolsmith]

Dude have u not been listening??? I specifically said KEEP all things that help everyone LIKE healthcare and education etc, and ELIMINATE things for individuals and groups specifically. Welfare is one of those things for individuals etc, which is where sylviaB stumped me. I can only think of establishing a system where people must fall below a certain benchmark of critical need before they are considered for welfare. If you can still survive on the money you have, you dont need welfare. Welfare should be for those people who have been thoroughly researched and classified as completely cash free.

As jenny macklin said, it is perfectly fucking possible to live on 35 dollars a day, some lazy aussie shits think they are "entitled" to more which is bullshit, you get as much as you need to survive and ONLY if you're 100 percent fucking broke.

My parents are both surgeons and we went on a 4 day holiday to coffs, keep in mind we fed ALL FOUR of us on one of the days, where we had cereal for breakfast ($4.50 a box of weetbix, $2.54 for a litre bottle of milk) then for lunch we had a roast chicken, two boxes of mini tomatoes (2x$3.00) and two long baguette things (~2X$3.00) then for dinner we went through a kilo of lychees and and two apples and two kiwis each. That's 8 apples (8x$0.54) and $8 worth of lychees and 8 kiwis (8x$0.96)

Now, total price for 4 people? YES, FOUR!!!
=$39.04!!!
for one person thats 9 fucking dollars and 76 fucking cents. Aussies need to learn they are NOT entitled to so much cash and they DONT need as much as they think.

The reason I mentioned my parents occupation is to show that they DONT go all fucking fancy just cos they're surgeons, and to show that we didn't have a day like this cos we're poor. We're not.

And if someone is going to go into the whole calorie thing of 8700 kilojoules a day and that food didn't provide it, just check out the calories on weetbix peeps. Besides that, clinical studies have shown that people LIVE LONGER and HEALTHIER on a lower intake of calories. Australia needs to understand this.

FOUR PEOPLE on less than 40 dollars. Come on.

But only sick people use the healthcare system. Not everyone is sick. Just the same way only poor people use the welfare system and not everyone is poor.

Seriously though it's quite clear that you have literally no idea what you are talking about, since you lack any ability to think.

Yes, this is why we keep critical economic funds, only release the option of cancelling superficial and unnecessary ones. It doesnt seem I am getting through to everyone.

1. IMPORTANT ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL FUNDS WOULD BE PERMANENT,
2. THE TAXPAYER DOES NOT HAVE CHOICE OVER THE ENTIRE BUDGET, ONLY A SELECT FEW AREAS. SELECT FEW!!! NOT THE WHOLE FUCKING BUDGET!! A HIGHLY INTRICATE MODERATION PROCESS WILL BE IN PLACE
3. EDUCATION IN POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IS IRRELEVANT, AS STATED IN POINT 1, THE FUNDS THAT MAKE OR BREAK A COUNTRY WILL REMAIN CONSTANT
4. AUSTRALIANS WILL ONLY HAVE A CHOICE OF FUNDS WHICH ARE NEGLIGIBLE IN THEIR INFLUENCE OF THE ECONOMY AS A WHOLE [/SIZE]


You guys keep arguing things which I have ALREADY REPLIED TO.

Read it.

So after wading through your belligerent autism, it can be discerned that you want the government to keep doing what it is doing right now except change the way they go about it to make it more expensive and wasteful in order to cut down on expense and waste.

People keep arguing with things you've replied to because you haven't addressed their concerns properly, I can't believe I actually have to explain this to someone

 

[darkfenrir]

But only sick people use the healthcare system. Not everyone is sick. Just the same way only poor people use the welfare system and not everyone is poor.

Seriously though it's quite clear that you have literally no idea what you are talking about, since you lack any ability to think.

So after wading through your belligerent autism, it can be discerned that you want the government to keep doing what it is doing right now except change the way they go about it to make it more expensive and wasteful in order to cut down on expense and waste.

People keep arguing with things you've replied to because you haven't addressed their concerns properly, I can't believe I actually have to explain this to someone

I believe what ive said is enough, for the points ive listed. What am I missing then? And yes I know I have little knowledge of politics but from what I do know I can tell that money is being thrown away by the millions.

 

[Lolsmith]

I believe what ive said is enough, for the points ive listed. What am I missing then? And yes I know I have little knowledge of politics but from what I do know I can tell that money is being thrown away by the millions.

You are clearly wrong in that belief. Yes the government is wasting money, but you haven't even bothered to look into where that waste is actually coming from in an economically sound and thought out manner. Affirmative action is the least of your worries.

 

[seremify007]

Yes, this is why we keep critical economic funds, only release the option of cancelling superficial and unnecessary ones. It doesnt seem I am getting through to everyone.


1. IMPORTANT ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL FUNDS WOULD BE PERMANENT,
2. THE TAXPAYER DOES NOT HAVE CHOICE OVER THE ENTIRE BUDGET, ONLY A SELECT FEW AREAS. SELECT FEW!!! NOT THE WHOLE FUCKING BUDGET!! A HIGHLY INTRICATE MODERATION PROCESS WILL BE IN PLACE
3. EDUCATION IN POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IS IRRELEVANT, AS STATED IN POINT 1, THE FUNDS THAT MAKE OR BREAK A COUNTRY WILL REMAIN CONSTANT
4. AUSTRALIANS WILL ONLY HAVE A CHOICE OF FUNDS WHICH ARE NEGLIGIBLE IN THEIR INFLUENCE OF THE ECONOMY AS A WHOLE


You guys keep arguing things which I have ALREADY REPLIED TO.

Read it.

So what you're saying is the government will have discretionary spend set up in the budget, and ask voters to pick from there? Might work but I suspect the cost of administering and auditing such a system would probably outweigh any savings/benefits, and somehow I doubt it would lead to a reduction in taxes (which is what people would usually prefer).