Rudd Government not up to speed on NBN
in [Computers]
|
Prev: Good ebay junk?
Next: Watching 3D movies on my computer
From: Swampfox on 3 Jul 2010 20:26 jason wrote: > 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. Not in the numbers that they do today. > >>>> 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 20:31 On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 16:04:10 -0700, jason wrote: > Women have always worked. Around Federation, the concept was espoused and accepted that "award" wages for a man should provide sufficent income for a man to have a wife at home raising his two children. Bob Hawke broke that arrangement in his labour market reforms. > >> >> Should taxpayers pay the unemployed to do nothing, and subsidise low >> >> cost public housing for those same unemployed? > > Yes. The truth behind our modern economy is that we do not need as many people in the past to produce the basics of life. Paying the excess a subsistence is seen as preferable to the alternatives.
From: jason on 3 Jul 2010 21:01 On Jul 4, 10:26 am, "Swampfox" <noi...(a)whocares.com> wrote: > jason wrote: > > 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. > > Not in the numbers that they do today. > > > > > > >>>> Should taxpayers pay the unemployed to do nothing, and subsidise > >>>> low cost public housing for those same unemployed? > > > Yes.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Just keep that thought in mind for your next Xmass party - go up to the oldest woman in the room and say: "Why didn't you work all of your life?" Then be prepared to wear the washing up gloves for the next 2 hours !!!
From: Mr.T on 7 Jul 2010 00:23 "Swampfox" <noidea(a)whocares.com> wrote in message news:4c2faf27$0$14086$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > 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. But even the self employed pay a higher rate of tax than companies. Incorporating is not such a great option for a single person. You probably *don't* actually pay a lower rate of tax at all, I'm betting you are able to income split with a spouse to reduce your tax instead? > True, but the poorest people are already marginalised and generally miss out > on most of the wealth that the country generates. No argument there. > The poorest people in Australia, however, are infinitely better catered for > than 90% of the world's poorest people, True, but still in the top group of countries for the most inequitable wealth distribution unfortunately. Australia as an egalitarian country was always a myth and still is. >universal health care alone ensures that. Yes one of the saving graces, but is not as good as some, and would be even worse if the Libs had their way. > Market economies generate winners and losers, that's the nature of the > beast, and for better or worse Australia's is amarket economy. Yep, generally for worse. The GFC showed that much. > But without women in the workforce our economy would collapse, You've been swallowing too many vested interest lies again. But in any case women having less babies does not equal less women in the workforce. More likely the reverse! >and many women simply couldn't afford to work without subsidised child care. Less than 40% of mothers with young children do anyway. But baby bonuses and subsidised child care simply encouarage further over-population. > It's not as straight forward as it seems. It is IMO, people should NOT be encouraged to over-populate the planet when that is the biggest problem in the world today! Gillard seems to be the first PM to acknowledge the idea of a "sustainable population" She hasn't spelled out what she thinks that is, but at least it's a start. However at the same time they introduce 18 weeks paid parental leave to *encourage* women to have kids. Talk about having a bet each way! > > Should the unemployed recieve a fair amount of the countries wealth > > generated by digging up our natural resources? > > It could be argued either way. Only by the rich who hate sharing anything! > >> 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. Better check the budget papers for the last few decades then. > >> 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. Yes, we aren't going to agree, but at least it's been civil. MrT.
From: Swampfox on 9 Jul 2010 03:43
Mr.T wrote: <snip> >> For "sustainable population" read fewer migrants and reffos, to >> court the bogan vote. >> Ms Gillard is a very canny politician. > > Not IMO. Already doing backflips and silly slips like saying she's an > aetheist. I'm just hoping she doesn't self destruct before the > election and leave us stuck with the Abbott! Gillard's East Timor gambit is a masterstroke. Whether it ever comes to fruition or not she's neutralised the issue and created the perception that she's just as willing to ship people offshore as Abbott is. It's a process that needs to be worked through, for that read no action before the election, but a process that she's committed to "pursuing rigourously", for that read action on reffos, whether it happens or not. The atheist number is smart too, calling it honestly and not playing any charade, an intelligent, straight shooter we can all trust. The religious fundies vote conservative anyway, the rest just want to see an honest politician. I think you underestimate her. <snip> > MrT. |