Rudd Government not up to speed on NBN
in [Computers]
|
Prev: Good ebay junk?
Next: Watching 3D movies on my computer
From: Swampfox on 1 Jul 2010 23:58 Mr.T wrote: > "Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message > news:4c2c38c0$0$17176$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> As I've said repeatedly, feel free to provide your own figures that >> show otherwise. > > Nobody can provide figures UNTIL it's done. As I've said repeatedly, I > wouldn't care that they might be wrong, IF it wasn't the taxpayer > footing the bill. > IF business had any confidence in it's profitability, taxpayer > funding of private enterprise would not be necessary. They don't so > why should I? > >>> For line rental, same as Telstra. That you may have a plan which >>> includes line rental does NOT mean you aren't paying it, UNLESS you >>> have no line? >> >> OK, that's what's commonly called a service fee which is charged by >> virtually any business proviving an ongoing service. > > Of course, and is often used to gouge small customers as in this case. > > >> Banks and many other financial institutions charge account keeping >> fees, councils charge rates, water, gas and electricity companies >> all have monthly fees to cover their fixed costs. > > Yep, councils are another good example of where what you pay bears no > relationship to the services provided since most are based on property > value. Simply a tax. But a person with a house of the exact same > value will pay a different rate depending on the Council area they > live, so not a very fair one at that. > > >> It's the normal course of events, businesses are not charities. > > No argument there, especially those making $Billions in profits. > > >>> Not at all, since I already said that. What I also said was the low >>> volume users pay FAR more than would simply be required for the >>> service they recieve, and any charge above actual standing costs and >>> a *fair* percentage of the companies profits, is obviously a cross >>> subsidy from low volume users to high volume users. YOU seem to be >>> having trouble grasping that. >> >> I'll grasp it if you provide some evidence to back your claims. > > No evidence would ever satisfy you anyway. But the fact you can't see > it for yourself speaks volumes. > >>>> Compare the price of a 1 litre can of paint with a 20lt drum of the >>>> same product, the principle remains unchanged no matter what >>>> business model. >>> >>> Yes, and IF the cost FAR exceeds the extra packaging, warehousing, >>> distribution, stock control, and sales costs, then it is also a rip >>> off. >> >> Agreed, but you haven't provided a shred of evidence that the cost >> FAR exceeds the extra packaging, warehousing, distribution, stock >> control, and sales costs. > > And you have not provided a shred of evidence that it doesn't, but > feel free to believe what you wan't, I'm sure facts would not change > your mind anyway. > >> It's a free market, people can choose, if the rip off is as huge as >> you portray then consumers can go elsewhere, > > Exactly, EXCEPT when they are FORCED as taxpayers to subsidise > something, which is what this argument was all about wasn't it? > > >>>> $30 per month gets you 4gb of mobile broadband which is the most >>>> expensive. >>> >>> Yep, *MOBILE*. So no need for the NBN then. I'm glad we finally >>> agree on something!!!!!!!! >> >> But you said $30 for 300Mb, where did you get that figure from, > > From my Optus bill!!!! > >> and how >> exactly does mobile broadband obviate the need for the NBN? > > YOU are the one quoting a mobile figure to claim there is no line > rental fee, NOT me! > But as I said, quite a few people are happy with mobile only > services, so why are they FORCED to pay for the NBN to be used by > others? > > >> The speeds are nowhere near comparable. > > In fact my mobile internet is sometimes faster than my Optus cable, > and averages out about the same. In practice I see little difference, > and am happily going to dump my expensive OPTUS cable service. But I > am not looking forward to being FORCED to still subsidise others. > > MrT. OK. At the end of the day people pay taxes based on their incomes, so the poorer people you talk about will pay far less of the cost of the NBN than will high income earners and big business, in effect it's them that will ultimately subsidise the low income earners' internet access. Should single, childless people subsidise childcare for the middle class? Should taxpayers pay the unemployed to do nothing, and subsidise low cost public housing for those same unemployed? Should young, healthy people subsidise aged care? Should people with children at private schools subsidise public education? Our taxes pay for a variety of things that many people will never use, it's the nature of things.
From: Mr.T on 3 Jul 2010 04:20 "Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message news:4c2d6425$0$1027$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > At the end of the day people pay taxes based on their incomes, If only it were so. People pay taxes based on their ability to avoid them. PAYE earners pay the most because they have the least opportunities to avoid them, and less money to afford the best acountants and lawyers. And the move to flat taxes like the GST hits the PAYE earner far more than the corporate billionaires who already pay a lower rate of company tax, and have far more tax shelters. >so the poorer > people you talk about will pay far less of the cost of the NBN than will > high income earners and big business, in effect it's them that will > ultimately subsidise the low income earners' internet access. Nope, the poorest people can't afford internet access and will recieve no benefit at all. > Should single, childless people subsidise childcare for the middle class? Nope. The world has more than enough people without subsiding more. > Should taxpayers pay the unemployed to do nothing, and subsidise low cost > public housing for those same unemployed? Should the unemployed recieve a fair amount of the countries wealth generated by digging up our natural resources? > Should young, healthy people subsidise aged care? Should the elderly who paid higher tax rates all their life and paid for the pensions of all those who went before, (not to mention the education expenses of those young people who recieve far better wages than their parents did at the same age) finally recieve a benefit now it is their turn? And a fair percentage of the countries wealth generated by selling thier mineral assets of course. > Should people with children at private schools subsidise public education? They don't. Private schools already recieve as much or more per head as public schools. > Our taxes pay for a variety of things that many people will never use, it's > the nature of things. No argument. But you fail to mention why an NBN is more important than Electricity and Water for example. And IF it's so important why the government privatised the network in the first place! IMO the government SHOULD provide essential services, NOT leave it to private enterprise to make a profit. Whether broadband internet IS an essential service though is surely open to debate, but it's *not* IMO!!!!!!!!! MrT.
From: Swampfox on 3 Jul 2010 17:43 Mr.T wrote: > "Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message > news:4c2d6425$0$1027$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> At the end of the day people pay taxes based on their incomes, > > If only it were so. People pay taxes based on their ability to avoid > them. PAYE earners pay the most because they have the least > opportunities to avoid them, and less money to afford the best > acountants and lawyers. And the move to flat taxes like the GST hits > the PAYE earner far more than the corporate billionaires who already > pay a lower rate of company tax, and have far more tax shelters. I've been self employed for over 20 years and I pay a much lower rate of tax than my son who isn't, it's a source of irritation to many people but the opportunity is there for all. > > >> so the poorer >> people you talk about will pay far less of the cost of the NBN than >> will high income earners and big business, in effect it's them that >> will ultimately subsidise the low income earners' internet access. > > Nope, the poorest people can't afford internet access and will > recieve no benefit at all. True, but the poorest people are already marginalised and generally miss out on most of the wealth that the country generates. The poorest people in Australia, however, are infinitely better catered for than 90% of the world's poorest people, universal health care alone ensures that. Market economies generate winners and losers, that's the nature of the beast, and for better or worse Australia's is amarket economy. Public libraries provide free internet access for the poor. > > >> Should single, childless people subsidise childcare for the middle >> class? > > Nope. The world has more than enough people without subsiding more. But without women in the workforce our economy would collapse, and many women simply couldn't afford to work without subsidised child care. It's not as straight forward as it seems. > > >> Should taxpayers pay the unemployed to do nothing, and subsidise low >> cost public housing for those same unemployed? > > Should the unemployed recieve a fair amount of the countries wealth > generated by digging up our natural resources? It could be argued either way. > > >> Should young, healthy people subsidise aged care? > > Should the elderly who paid higher tax rates all their life and paid > for the pensions of all those who went before, (not to mention the > education expenses of those young people who recieve far better wages > than their parents did at the same age) finally recieve a benefit now > it is their turn? And a fair percentage of the countries wealth > generated by selling thier mineral assets of course. > > >> Should people with children at private schools subsidise public >> education? > > They don't. Private schools already recieve as much or more per head > as public schools. That's simply not true. > > >> Our taxes pay for a variety of things that many people will never >> use, it's the nature of things. > > No argument. But you fail to mention why an NBN is more important than > Electricity and Water for example. And IF it's so important why the > government privatised the network in the first place! IMO the > government SHOULD provide essential services, NOT leave it to private > enterprise to make a profit. Whether broadband internet IS an > essential service though is surely open to debate, but it's *not* > IMO!!!!!!!!! In today's economy it could easily be argued that it is, but we may as well leave it there, we've done this to death. It's been good talking to you. > > MrT.
From: jason on 3 Jul 2010 19:04 On Jul 4, 7:43 am, "Swampfox" <noi...(a)whocares.com> wrote: > Mr.T wrote: > > "Swampfox" <noi...(a)whocares.com> wrote in message > >news:4c2d6425$0$1027$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > >> At the end of the day people pay taxes based on their incomes, > > > If only it were so. People pay taxes based on their ability to avoid > > them. PAYE earners pay the most because they have the least > > opportunities to avoid them, and less money to afford the best > > acountants and lawyers. And the move to flat taxes like the GST hits > > the PAYE earner far more than the corporate billionaires who already > > pay a lower rate of company tax, and have far more tax shelters. > > I've been self employed for over 20 years and I pay a much lower rate of tax > than my son who isn't, it's a source of irritation to many people but the > opportunity is there for all. > > >> so the poorer > >> people you talk about will pay far less of the cost of the NBN than > >> will high income earners and big business, in effect it's them that > >> will ultimately subsidise the low income earners' internet access. > > > Nope, the poorest people can't afford internet access and will > > recieve no benefit at all. > > True, but the poorest people are already marginalised and generally miss out > on most of the wealth that the country generates. > The poorest people in Australia, however, are infinitely better catered for > than 90% of the world's poorest people, universal health care alone ensures > that. > Market economies generate winners and losers, that's the nature of the > beast, and for better or worse Australia's is amarket economy. > Public libraries provide free internet access for the poor. An internet connection and a device for accessing the internet in a house is now as basic a need. > >> Should single, childless people subsidise childcare for the middle > >> class? No > > Nope. The world has more than enough people without subsiding more. > > But without women in the workforce our economy would collapse, and many > women simply couldn't afford to work without subsidised child care. > It's not as straight forward as it seems. Women have always worked. > >> Should taxpayers pay the unemployed to do nothing, and subsidise low > >> cost public housing for those same unemployed? Yes.
From: terryc on 3 Jul 2010 20:26
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 07:43:03 +1000, Swampfox wrote: > Market economies generate winners and losers, that's the nature of the > beast, and for better or worse Australia's is amarket economy. Nope, now where near a true market economy. Never has been in this country right from the start. |