staringclown

How long will Malcolm remain

192 posts in this topic

Singapore allows deductions. My first 6 months there were effectively tax free, I think 3 or 4K total due to the government schemes to encourage business, I didn't expect that. I expected to save about 100K compared to Australian taxes but 150K was nice.

 

However you still haven't answered which country you think I should be paying tax in on top of what I pay currently to be "honest". I believe I am paying more into the various systems than I take out of them no matter which angle you look at it from.

 

So your argument of hypocrisy kind of fails for me. I believe that any government should follow Germany and Norway's lead in terms of getting education to everyone. Not because I think educated people are cooler (which I do) but because the numbers indicate it is better for the country. You are claiming that free education costs a country more than it delivers but have yet to show any numbers.

 

If you think your lack of numbers can be covered up through a claim of hypocrisy on my behalf I doubt it will work. But I can play that rhetorical game too if you like; I have a track record of using the numbers even when I don't want to believe them.

 

Except Zaph asked us to be nice.

 

Since you think that Australia should provide 'free' education, then why not incorporate here and pay the extra corporate tax to support it?

Norway, unlike Australia, has not p!issed away their resources income on 'worthwhile' causes like negative gearing on established dwellings as an example!

They are a richer country than us, hence they can afford to give more 'free' government services. But if they had not earned their oil revenues, it probably would be a different story. Ditto Germany, they are an economic powerhouse. Next major recession, they will probably be cutting back all around.

Our HECS liability is ballooning and I don't blame the government trying to reign it in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think that education costs money short term _and_ long term yes? Do you have any numbers for that?

 

Or are you saying Australia in such a parlous state that we can suffer government regulated educational choices for those that can afford it until the next boom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to the above, since you mentioned Norway and Germany, read about their tax rates here and here. How does that compare to your 10% tax rate?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about Germany but I am pretty sure that the Norwegian one was an ethical thing. They had been poor for so long that the new riches (like Australia) were viewed with suspicion by a socialist government.

 

So are you now advocating Norwegian style Social democracy government and I have to pay taxes there when I am not there to benefit from it? We do have plans of moving there in a couple of years and will certainly pay our taxes there when we benefit from some of the advantages their system offers.

 

Is this a personal thing? I live in Japan and pay my taxes here happily (I could avoid the consumption tax easily enough as foreigners don't have to pay but I do and GST on setting up a new apartment is a considerable sum)

 

Or are you saying that I should incorporate in Norway / Australia / Wheref*ckingEver without the benefits of living under systems I like simply because I believe that statistics show free education makes countries richer?

 

Really you can't get the two separate concepts clear? Education makes countries richer. You can't find data otherwise and your posting delay shows you have tried to find it.

 

You want to live in a country where petty hatreds of useless intellectuals brings down the wealth of all would be my surmise. But f*ck me you want to find the data showing how free education makes a country worse, I am guessing you'll go for the insane racism Norway just embarked on next if your google skills are any good.

 

Bad News is that Norway has weird nationalism and you won't get it from google easily. oooops so does Germany.

 

You still haven't answered any questions! why is that? Too afraid to have an opinion?

 

I mean sure I will f*cking destroy your opinions and probably in a hilarious way, but what the f*ck, take a chance, you don't believe in history predicting the past unless Armstrong says it. He never once replied to my emails though so I guess you don't have either.

 

(by the way the standard way out now is to say I am drunk)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about Germany but I am pretty sure that the Norwegian one was an ethical thing. They had been poor for so long that the new riches (like Australia) were viewed with suspicion by a socialist government.

 

So are you now advocating Norwegian style Social democracy government and I have to pay taxes there when I am not there to benefit from it? We do have plans of moving there in a couple of years and will certainly pay our taxes there when we benefit from some of the advantages their system offers.

 

Is this a personal thing? I live in Japan and pay my taxes here happily (I could avoid the consumption tax easily enough as foreigners don't have to pay but I do and GST on setting up a new apartment is a considerable sum)

 

Or are you saying that I should incorporate in Norway / Australia / Wheref*ckingEver without the benefits of living under systems I like simply because I believe that statistics show free education makes countries richer?

 

Really you can't get the two separate concepts clear? Education makes countries richer. You can't find data otherwise and your posting delay shows you have tried to find it.

 

You want to live in a country where petty hatreds of useless intellectuals brings down the wealth of all would be my surmise. But f*ck me you want to find the data showing how free education makes a country worse, I am guessing you'll go for the insane racism Norway just embarked on next if your google skills are any good.

 

Bad News is that Norway has weird nationalism and you won't get it from google easily. oooops so does Germany.

 

You still haven't answered any questions! why is that? Too afraid to have an opinion?

 

I mean sure I will f*cking destroy your opinions and probably in a hilarious way, but what the f*ck, take a chance, you don't believe in history predicting the past unless Armstrong says it. He never once replied to my emails though so I guess you don't have either.

 

(by the way the standard way out now is to say I am drunk)

 

I'm not advocating Norwegian style Social democracy government or any other interpretation of yours.

I am very clear in what I'm saying - those who advocate large government spending should be paying large taxes to substantiate their views. To pay for all their social spending Norway and Germany charge taxes way above the 10% you're paying, which was a deliberate action you chose. Pretty simple statements to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you disagree with the study staring clown linked to? https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/reports/rihe.pdf

 

Where is your data?

 

I have major 'philosophical' issues with the concept of 'free' government services:

  1. If 'free' education is such good value and affordable, then why did a (Labor government) introduce co-payments? Was perhaps anything to do that it was burning an out-of-control hole in the budget?!!
  2. I was a recipient of Whitlam's free University. Whilst there I saw students who came to University to see what it was liked and then left before they finished their course because they didn't like it. Exactly what value for money did the tax payers get from these students?
  3. A co-payment puts a price on the service, meaning that consumers of that service make a conscious decision as to its worth (see above point). It also means that those who will gain the most from the education are the ones who contribute the most towards recovery of costs,
  4. As previously mentioned, I have major objection to blanket coverage of subsidized education. Where such education has negligible use in the economy, it is unlikely that the tax payers' investment will be recovered. I'd rather see those monies spent in applied research, where there is a better chance of getting value for money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and whilst on the subject of 'free' services, I can't find any more recent data than this link. So between:

  • corporations and individuals engaging in tax evasion (as per recent new headlines),
  • middle class welfare such as negative gearing

it means that the rest of 'us' are carrying the ever growing burden of paying for these 'free' services. IMO, other than putting a price on 'free' services, the tax system needs a major overhaul. As I mentioned above, I think there is value in a lower, flat tax with no deductions to discourage tax evasion/creative accounting practices are minimised, as well as encourage people to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Malcolm has had to dig himself into a hole.

Because he won't touch Negative Gearing himself, he has had to oppose Labor's Negative Gearing policy.

By claiming that Labor's policy of reducing/removing Negative Gearing will lower house prices, he is effectively suggesting it maintains high house prices.

He may have lost the first home buyers and all those who through affordability issues are unable to own their own home.

This one issue, could be the game changer.

The election could be fought on a platform of maintaining high home prices/or not.

 

Personally I don't think it will make that much difference.

While the banks hold the purse strings home prices will remain at a level that keeps them in the lifestyle they have become accustomed to.

But it is certainly an issue which seems to divide our nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and whilst on the subject of 'free' services, I can't find any more recent data than this link. So between:

  • corporations and individuals engaging in tax evasion (as per recent new headlines),
  • middle class welfare such as negative gearing

it means that the rest of 'us' are carrying the ever growing burden of paying for these 'free' services. IMO, other than putting a price on 'free' services, the tax system needs a major overhaul. As I mentioned above, I think there is value in a lower, flat tax with no deductions to discourage tax evasion/creative accounting practices are minimised, as well as encourage people to work.

There is no problem with you having philosophical issues with the idea, people feel the way they feel. Most of your reasoning seems to be "we aren't collecting taxes properly and we are creating too many loopholes therefore we can't have nice things" to my reading of it.

 

Wouldn't it be better to fix the broken stuff and have nice things again? Especially if those nice things have a positive return to the country? Like Norway and it's resource tax covering the cost of free education for example?

 

Oh, and to rest your mind, when we do make it to Norway and participate in the free education I will be paying tax there, probably more than the education would cost. In the meantime I spent 20 years paying tax and upfront uni fees in Australia so I think they had their chance at encouraging me to stay and keep paying taxes for things I don't want or use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Like Norway and it's resource tax covering the cost of free education for example?...

 

 

From what I've seen, if you don't put a price on it, those 'free' services get abused, which is why the welfare budget is ever growing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of irrelevant if you fix the root cause though right? Solve the tax collection issues you believe are problems and you'll be swimming in cash right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a semi related thought, the US has a very high social premium on tertiary education. From this people have long thought their kids _have_ to go to uni or become failures. Universities have taken advantage of this cultural obsession and whacked prices up so high that university fees are effectively crippling for anyone not doing an immediately profitable job.

 

Much like the first home buyers grant just raised house prices by about that much the US college fund meme basically pushed prices up by that much.

 

But there are still tons of people "abusing" the education system (which I am interpreting to mean "doing American History / PoliSci etc).

 

Your stance, to me, would have universities cease teaching humanities because almost none of them get jobs which make money. I like engineering and will happily sneer at humanities students but even I know we need them out there. Would your proposed government regulation of courses offered mean that there was only space for the 20% of humanities students that will go on to be profitable in a capitalistic sense? How would you identify those students?

 

Pure sciences as well are rarely profitable. Most of them that get jobs in their degree get jobs teaching the next crop of pure science people. But you want to put money into research. Which needs lots of semi skilled pure science undergrads to keep the cost down.

 

All in all I don't see how people not trained in pure sciences are going to select the students who are allowed to do pure science and then provide the career guidance to get them into a situation where they can do the research like CSIRO which becomes profitable.

 

Unless you create a new demand for humanities and pure science people who will provide those advisory roles to the government.

 

And then you are back at square one really - you created the jobs which are currently missing and justified all the courses you wanted to cut. With a lot of overhead for the government, which means you need to fix the tax collection process to fund it.

 

Easier to just start with the problem (not collecting the taxes from big corporate) and give anyone that wants it free education.

 

Never work of course as the mining tax showed...

 

Although if people were more educated perhaps the advertising campaign wouldn't have worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of irrelevant if you fix the root cause though right? Solve the tax collection issues you believe are problems and you'll be swimming in cash right?

 

Nope. Both the tax collection & 'free' services issues need to be scrutinised closely. I'm not a believer in big a big taxes as they remove incentives for people & corporations to strive ahead. This means, expenditure needs to be reigned in as well, meaning a government learning to say no to 'free' services when the budget can't afford it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a semi related thought, the US has a very high social premium on tertiary education. From this people have long thought their kids _have_ to go to uni or become failures. Universities have taken advantage of this cultural obsession and whacked prices up so high that university fees are effectively crippling for anyone not doing an immediately profitable job.

 

Much like the first home buyers grant just raised house prices by about that much the US college fund meme basically pushed prices up by that much.

 

But there are still tons of people "abusing" the education system (which I am interpreting to mean "doing American History / PoliSci etc).

 

Your stance, to me, would have universities cease teaching humanities because almost none of them get jobs which make money. I like engineering and will happily sneer at humanities students but even I know we need them out there. Would your proposed government regulation of courses offered mean that there was only space for the 20% of humanities students that will go on to be profitable in a capitalistic sense? How would you identify those students?

 

Pure sciences as well are rarely profitable. Most of them that get jobs in their degree get jobs teaching the next crop of pure science people. But you want to put money into research. Which needs lots of semi skilled pure science undergrads to keep the cost down.

 

All in all I don't see how people not trained in pure sciences are going to select the students who are allowed to do pure science and then provide the career guidance to get them into a situation where they can do the research like CSIRO which becomes profitable.

 

Unless you create a new demand for humanities and pure science people who will provide those advisory roles to the government.

 

And then you are back at square one really - you created the jobs which are currently missing and justified all the courses you wanted to cut. With a lot of overhead for the government, which means you need to fix the tax collection process to fund it.

 

Easier to just start with the problem (not collecting the taxes from big corporate) and give anyone that wants it free education.

 

Never work of course as the mining tax showed...

 

Although if people were more educated perhaps the advertising campaign wouldn't have worked.

 

IMO, subsidized education to be provided where there is a demand for that service/knowledge. Humanity subjects are required for some professions (eg. teaching). Beyond projected demand, students can pay out of their own pockets without tax payers contributing. Perhaps governments can offer scholarships when they run big surpluses. Until then, all areas of expenditure (education and other) to be scrutinised until the budget is balanced. Otherwise you get the current situation where politicians pork barrel more than what can be afforded and then bigger belt tightening is required or worse still, pushed out to be the next generation's problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I get that. I just spelled out exactly why it won't work (well there are more reasons as well).

 

So it looks like you are sticking to the "we can't have nice things because we won't fix the problems" idea.

 

Good thing you aren't running for government anywhere I want to live.

Shame most politicians follow your path (although they at least often have a financial reason to).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One may look at education a bit like "lending" money. You'll have bad debts every now and then, but if there's net gain it's still good business. There may be a level of waste in providing free or near-free education, but there's a net gain to society.

 

It also fits in with the key message that I got from Japan (and Toyota and its suppliers). The most important thing that makes them successful is investing in people. Skills, training, human development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We fight with a bunch of those toyota guys every week or two, I am going to say they are all totally awesome and not bad credit risks at all, sterling humans the lot of them :)

 

One was actually going to be captain of our team for the all japans. We never mentioned it was probably because he couldn't make the real team as he is way better than us. we are not fans of unnecessary pain.

 

Shame you were here on a short time frame when we were going through an upheaval and had commitments, would have preferred to help you out better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I get that. I just spelled out exactly why it won't work (well there are more reasons as well).

 

So it looks like you are sticking to the "we can't have nice things because we won't fix the problems" idea.

 

Good thing you aren't running for government anywhere I want to live.

Shame most politicians follow your path (although they at least often have a financial reason to).

 

I watched the ABC news this morning. Apparently, there is now now end date as to when the budget deficit will be repaired.

So we can now expect for the government's credit rating to eventually deteriorate, higher interest payments on the government's borrowings. As well I guess the number receiving government welfare will be maintained (or increased) until it all crashes down in a heap because it becomes totally unsustainable (Argentina anyone?).

 

In the mean time keep kicking the can down the road and enjoy those 'free' government benefits. Let's leave it to the next generation to become financial slaves and pay for it. What a wonderfully generous spirit that approach has!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We fight with a bunch of those toyota guys every week or two, I am going to say they are all totally awesome and not bad credit risks at all, sterling humans the lot of them :)

 

One was actually going to be captain of our team for the all japans. We never mentioned it was probably because he couldn't make the real team as he is way better than us. we are not fans of unnecessary pain.

 

Shame you were here on a short time frame when we were going through an upheaval and had commitments, would have preferred to help you out better.

 

Just drop words like kaizen, genchi genbutsu and yokoten with the Toyota guys and you'll either increase or decrease your credibility in quick fashion. :)

 

That's cool, appreciated the hospitality. I'm hoping to return to Japan next year (if not sooner).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rooster to feather duster in the space of 48 hours. This has to be some kind of record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does seem like you guys had a good one. Shame Brexit overshadowed it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does seem like you guys had a good one. Shame Brexit overshadowed it :)

 

 

Anger at inequality may finally be overtaking apathy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turnbull's made a balls up of the Rudd for PM of the world campaign. 

 

He said publicly he wasn't going to make a 'captain's call' and took it to cabinet. A good move after Tony's disastrous picks. But he tacitly indicated he supported the nomination. Then cabinet tell him to make the decision. He panders to the right in his party and says no, going back on his personal view and undermining Bishop's very public view.

 

He now looks very vindictive, weak and partisan. In typical Rudd style he's released correspondence that shows Mal supported his nomination. Kev will not rest till Mal's head is on a stick outside parliament house. Rudd's good at revenge. 

 

Not a good start for Mal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now