In addition some of those on over 100k might be working two jobs or self employed...so tax free threshold becomes a factor.

-PB

Most are social democrats. Not communists.

You can do better than that comment. Come on, school me on how my white privilege means my opinion counts for shit :lol:

I think a person on 100K actually pays about double the income tax. I don't really think the $100K person pays too much tax though and there are benefits to having a parent home.

Sorry, didn't really phrase my post correctly.

Your value in the market is determined by the demand of the market vs the supply. Obviously, there are shitloads of teachers because the ATAR requirements 60-70, whereas the ATAR for Doctors is 95+. Higher supply of teacher = lower value and vice versa.

NB. My post wasn't really about how uni = success, it was about how only a select few people do high-ranking courses in uni that limits their supply

I kind of agree but the ATAR is just an indication of how popular a uni course is, I'm sure there are plenty of course with 90+ ATARs that have less earning power than ones with ATARs < 90.

Yep - pretty sure pure math/science earns you far less than engineering or commerce.

This thread has gone full retard in the past few pages.

I think we have the government we deserve.

One that doesn't piss money up the wall and go on frivolous spending sprees funded by debt and retarded ideas that yield only death and destruction like their shitty asylum seeker policies that killed over 1000 people?

We have a government we deserve, one which has the balls to give this country the medicine it needs. Labor has fannies.

Yes, thank-you for proving my point.

Oh hurray, Rusty is here

I really can't understand all the rage about the $7 co payment. Seven bucks is nothing. If you have four out of ten people shitting themselves over a $7 fee to see their GP our economy is in some serious fucking trouble. And yet the carbon tax adds $550 to average household and does jack for the environment yet the labor party want to oppose repealing that tax, yet Shorten calls the $7 GP tax ( which actually goes towards something useful) wicked and pernicious. What a confused mob with a twisted set or priorities. They are fast becoming worse than the greens. I thought Shorten was supposed to be Right but he's losing the plot fast.

This labor lefty bizarro world is highly disturbing. 1,100 asylum seekers die at sea and they don't give a shit, then one dude dies in PNG and they hold a day of national mourning. They refuse to repeal a tax which adds $550 to electricity bills and does nothing, yet they go in a crusade about a $7 payment which goes towards curing diseases. They promise a surplus and deliver a whopping deficit, and now they don't even believe in surpluses anymore. What a confused strange mob.

Just because $7 is nothing to you does not mean it isn't a lot of money to other people.

Time to summon Hoff.

-PB

And which medicine do we need again?

The amount is irrelevant. It's wedge politics, plain and simple.

We already pay for medicare through our taxes and levy's. I don't mind paying a medicare levy in lieu of lower income families, but I do resent subsidising negative gearing and superannuation concessions for people that do not need it.

There are dozens of savings measures that could have been followed, but they weren't because they go against the ideology of the government of the day.

It's a shame that you're incapable of a coherent original thought, rusty, you probably would have some valid things to say if you weren't so blinded by party politics like some of the other stooges around.

Dat company line programming.

-PB

It's like one of those old-school flash soundboards.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/arnold

DEFICIT DEFICIT BUDGET EMERGENCY 1100+ SEA DEATHS

LABOR MESS LABOR MESS


CLEAR MANDATE CLEAR MANDATE

Not actual medicine, in this case.

fucks sake. i promised paulbagz id post in this thread but i dont ufcking want to. ive had a lotta goon and i dont want to; sober i'd want to even less. fuck you. i promised him i would tho. the c*** (used some astrixes cuz i cunt rmemeber what the swearing pollicy is on this faggot forum).

anyway. im gonna lay down some econ 101. i havent read any of the posts on this pathetic thread, except what paul copypasted to me which was the post by---hang on, checking.... jesus that just coisst me 20 s of my life ill never get back--"rusty" (original name fuckhead) about the debt. so yeh listen up nerds cause im gonna teach u how it works IRL. i also want to mention befoe i start, socer is the gayest sport known to mankind, even gayer michael jackson. if you follow soccer you have an overt or covert desire to suck a man;s cock. without further adieu, to the lecture:



jk thats not the lecture it's a pic of a male model. anyway 2 da lecture:



ECON 101

consider the following basic accounting identity. this isn't theory; it's what you call a truism in mathematics--it's true because of how we define the terms.

public sector financial balance + private sector financial balance + foreign sector financial balance = 0

ignore the foreign sector for the moment as it's just clutter and doenst affect the analysis. the above equation means, in simple terms even a downy like rusty could understand: the financial bal of the public sector + the financial bal of the pvt sector = 0. Imagine me and rustvirgen on a desert island. say im the pvt sector and hes the public sector. In our little mini economy, us 2 produce the goods andservices; everything from coconuts, palm tree houses and blowjobs (an exclusive service rusty produces, and specialises in). If I want to borrow, that is run a deficit (spend more than i produce) then rusty has to run a surplus (save more than he produces). There is literally no other way. Likewise, if I want to save (aka run a surplus, and consume less than i produce) then rusty has to run a deficit of the same amount. I can only borrow his savings, and i can only save what he borrows. all borrowings come from savings, and all savings must be borrowed. this is classical econ 101

u with me soccer nerds? (shit sport btw). IRL, the private sector likes to run a surplus aka save, 99% of the time. that';s because ppl like to acquire financial assets and save for their retirement. the private sector in a market economy drive the bus; it is the vast majority of economic activity and so it should be. if you disagree with this ur a commie. so the pvt sector likes to run a surplus; the only way it can do that is if the public sector runs a deficit. this is why, if you look at an historical graph of govt balance (i.e surplus or deficit) as a % of gdp for any developed rich economy, you will see trhe same thing: nonstop govt deficits with the occasional surplus, which is rarer than th eemergence of a legendary super saiyan. wanna see for yourself? head over to tradingeconomics.com and check the government budget stat for any rich economy you choose, and set the date back to as far as it goes. Here's a link for the richest, most high tech and incredible economy known to man:

USA USA USA

check it for any developed eocnomy u liek: germany, uk, australia, canada, france, norway, etc. u see the trend retards? the natural state of the universe is govt deficits. it all comes back to that equation i gave you earlier, which, again, isnt "thoery" but is an truism.

so u can see from the education i just gave you, that the private sector is god. it is king. it decides the economy;s saving and borrowing decisions. it follows from this that is a government tries to jam the govt budget (i.e the public sector financial balance) into surplus, then this forces the private sector into deficit (aka borrowing aka debt). in reality, governments dont decide (besides temporarily) whteher the govt runs a surplus or deficit. the private sector decides. if the pvt sector wants to run a surplus, the govt sector must run a deficit. there is literally no other way. so if the pvt sector wants to save and run a surplus, and the govt decides to run a surplus, this means the govt has decided "hey guys, we r the govt, we are king, we dont trust private individuals to make their own spending and saving decisions correctly, so we will make it for you". it is the most anti free market attitude u could possibly have.

in summary, governments who want to "balance the budget" or run surpluses is literally communism. there is no greater intervention in the lives of individuals than a government deciding en masse their ultimate financial decisions. which is exactly what tryingto get "muh surplus" equates too--a distrust of the private sector and a hatred for australia.

if you support budget surpluses, you are commie control freak anti-market scum.

p.s "money" is just digital 1s and 0s created and destroyed by the central bank at a keystroke in infinite amounts, not gold. fucktards

p.p.s soccer is a shit sport

well this thread got weird

anyway here is a non-partisan question:

What is the lowest 2pp poll an incumbent government in Australia has gotten and then gone on to win the election

My gut says it is probably impossible to win from 56-44.
Anyone have any answers?

Well shit :lol:



-PB

Lol. Who is this hoff guy?

Is that PB's multi?

Wrong, wrong WRONG! Australia is the 4th (or 6th depending which comparisons you use) lowest taxed country in the OECD. Get these simple facts right first then argue your points of view.

http://www.treasury.gov.au/Policy-Topics/Taxation/Pocket-Guide-to-the-Australian-Tax-System/Pocket-Guide-to-the-Australian-Tax-System/Part-1

And as an aside the Rudd government taxed less than the Howard government as a proportion of GDP.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-21/rudd-tax-to-gdp-ratio/4892178

Not saying this is a good or bad thing but get the facts right first, then argue away.



Edited by munrubenmuz: 17/5/2014 09:53:54 AM

Your sources are less than credible to say the least... one of them being a news article from the ABC? lol...surely you can do better than that.

My father used to work in the Australian Bureaus of Stats for many years and my brother works in banking and they both conclude Australia is one of the highest taxing in the world. I know a friend who moved to Hong Kong for work and he says their tax rate is like 15 percent or something like that and he can save more personally.


Ask yourself the question...how many countries outside of Europe around the world have a welfare system not to mention a public health system.?


Fuck all...so your links to articles mean fuck all...


Why do you think Aslyum seekers (or even economic refugees) want to go to Australia, UK and the Scandanavian countries? Its because there is a safety net to provide them with the basic essentials to survive.

Ask yourself the question...what subsides and pays for the public health system and welfare?

Taxes...

Im not against welfare and I disagree with Rusty on the medicare thing, but don't tell me Australia is a low taxing country because thats bullshit.


Edited by SocaWho: 17/5/2014 11:06:13 AM

Quality from Hoff, can confirm he is not PB haha

Just from this line I can conclude your opinion is less than credible and I shouldn't bother reading your posts.