-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
tigersnake said:
tigersnake said:
Tigersnake,
If the bloke in NZ wants to do that, then good on him.
That is HIS choice to do that...just like it was another bloke's choice to go and buy a mansion for his daughter.
Everyone should have the opportunity to make their own money, as much as they want, and to spend it how they want.
That is what living in a free world is all about.
3 houses and $5 mill....well, I'm not happy about that...I think I might only be happy with 6 houses and $20mill...where do you or anyone get off telling me what amount I should be happy with?
I don't think anyone has the right to start limiting what you can own or how much money you can make, purely because Joe Blow down the road didn't get off his arse when he was at high-school, and now sits on the couch all day watching Oprah, and we should feel sorry for him and give him even more handouts.
Where is the incentive for people to strive to do better, if they can only reach a certain limit, that you want to place on people?
Where is the incentive for Joe Blow to get off the couch, if people out there inventing ideas, or using their skills to make money, have to pay extra taxes, which end up in the pockets of people like Joe Blow?
Simply, I think you should move to Pyongyang mate, if you want to live in a world with this sort of ideology.
good on ya liverpool. No need for the angry face though, thats harsh. And the bold and underline geez, bold I can handle, underline yeah, I can take it, I'm a grown up, but both is a bit much.
I know I'm a crazy loon who is out of step, you should see me sometimes, I stayed up until 11.30 once. Your view is the majority, or at least the view of the majority of those who hold the reins.
3 houses and $5 mill, yeah, no incentive, dunno what I was thinking.
I know I'm a crazy loon who is out of step, you should see me sometimes, I stayed up until 11.30 once. Your view is the majority, or at least the view of the majority of those who hold the reins.
3 houses and $5 mill, yeah, no incentive, dunno what I was thinking.
If the Kiwi $30 million dollar man shared the wealth with all fellow kiwis then they would each receive about $10. Big Deal. Doesn't even pay fro a packet of smokes. This is called socialism
But if on the other hand he invested the money in a new business he would create even more wealth and jobs as well. This is called capitalism
The latter option provides more long term benefit to the economy and the country as a whole.
Socialism is only concerned with how to divide the cake. Capitalism is all about baking the cake.
But if on the other hand he invested the money in a new business he would create even more wealth and jobs as well. This is called capitalism
The latter option provides more long term benefit to the economy and the country as a whole.
Socialism is only concerned with how to divide the cake. Capitalism is all about baking the cake.
poppa x said:
Exactly Poppa! :clap
It's all "big picture" stuff....something Tigersnake isn't concerned with.
He's only concerned about taxing all those rich bastards so he can enjoy eating the cake he didn't help bake at all... :hihi
Liverpool said:
I think Tiger Snake already mentioned that he is well off... I think he is more concerned about the under fed, underpriveliged and under paid getting a piece of the cake.
Gypsy__Jazz said:
They don't deserve any of the cake Gypsy.
If Tigersnake CHOOSES to give away his money, then that is HIS choice.
All I am saying, is that it should be that....A CHOICE...not some rule or legislation, taxing rich people to the eyeballs.
Cos they haven't earnt it? Those starving kids in Africa should really make a lot more shoes, true?Liverpool said:
Curtis E Bear said:
Firstly, there are charities that help these kids out...charities that everyone can CHOOSE to donate money to, as well as the Government handing over millions of dollars every year to help these causes.
Taxing rich people even more, or as Tigersnake proposes, limiting people what they can save/buy, is not a choice.
Secondly, if I had my way, I'd be sending over condoms, birth control pills, and instructions on how to use these.....as its quite selfish of people to continually bring kids into the world, in such conditions to begin with.
This "band Aid" with Geldof has been going on for over 20 years.....and if we sent over doctors and birth control devices, then we wouldn't have starving kids now, would we....but no....we send over $$$, more $$$, and more $$$...and where have we got?
Nowhere!
But not according to people like you, Gypsy, or Tigersnake...oh no....tax the rich people more to help the underprivileged.....yeah right, and I can assure you...in 20 years, after comapnies go bust because rich people can't invest in more technologies, or into better equipment for their companies.....there will be more "underfed and underprivileged" than we have now.
According to people like me - LOL.Liverpool said:
All I showed was your lack of tact. You said - quite plainly, that starving, underpriveliged underemployed people 'don't deserve a piece of the cake'.
I say:
I wouldn't eat it in front of them and say:
Curtis E Bear said:
Curtis,
People like you, Gypsy, and Tigersnake, have some idea that "life should be fair".....it isn't.
There is always going to be someone richer than I, yet I don't think I deserve anything they have.....I don't deserve any more, or any less than what I have myself.
If I am rich, then good on me...if Joe Blow wins LOTTO...then good on him.....if someone else lives in a cardboard box, then, sorry, thats life.
Tomorrow, that bloke in the cardboard box might win the $30million Powerball, do I deserve some of that?
No.
Underprivileged, unemployed, and starving people don't deserve a slice of the pie, for doing nothing.
Why should they???
So you would taunt poor starving M'fufu like that? With your big fat capitalist mudcake?Liverpool said:
I am in awe of those that get rich - I feel privileged to rub shoulders with them in an effort to better myself and my standing in life.
I say good on those who get/have got rich. As long as they share those riches fairly with those that helped them get rich.
And
Liverpool - that does not always happen.
There are those that have got rich using the labour and resources of others and have not fairly paid for such. Just as there are those that bludge and do zilch but want to be looked after through handouts.
Distribution of wealth will always bring up cases from both sides - those capitalists that are ruthless and walk over others keeping them down trodden to make the capitalist more profits - and - those that do little and want to be looked after by government welfare which is funded by taxing the entrepreneurs and workers in our society.
To all readers of this post whichever your philosophy I would hope that you carry the Australian Tradition of a fair go - that means a fair go for the person outlaying their capital to make a decent return against that capital (profit - even if they become rich) and a fair go for the worker who helps that person make that profit.
Again in many areas of our society this is not happening.
I say good on those who get/have got rich. As long as they share those riches fairly with those that helped them get rich.
And
Liverpool - that does not always happen.
There are those that have got rich using the labour and resources of others and have not fairly paid for such. Just as there are those that bludge and do zilch but want to be looked after through handouts.
Distribution of wealth will always bring up cases from both sides - those capitalists that are ruthless and walk over others keeping them down trodden to make the capitalist more profits - and - those that do little and want to be looked after by government welfare which is funded by taxing the entrepreneurs and workers in our society.
To all readers of this post whichever your philosophy I would hope that you carry the Australian Tradition of a fair go - that means a fair go for the person outlaying their capital to make a decent return against that capital (profit - even if they become rich) and a fair go for the worker who helps that person make that profit.
Again in many areas of our society this is not happening.
Curtis E Bear said:
Curtis,
You're still dodging the question.
Gypsy__Jazz said:
Gypsy,
I don't think so......I think I am right on the money.
Many of these African countries are overpopulated for the resources and infrastructure available to them...hence why we have had starving African kids on our TV screens for 20+ years.
How much money and welfare do they need?
Quite simply, if birth control was more prevalent, then we wouldn't have starving kids, would we? and certainly not as many child-soldiers running around, with weapons bought by money handed over to them, throughout 20+ years of corruptness.
But God no....let's tax the rich people more, so poor M'fufu gets a piece of pie, to go with his AK-47....right Curtis?
RemoteTiger said:
Remote,
Why SHOULD they share their riches fairly with those who helped them get rich, and who should decide all this anyway?
Let's look at Harry Kewell.....he is rich because of who?
He has a skill and talent, that he acquired naturally, AND, by loving the sport, and practicing in his backyard and at school....hence why he was 15 years old when he went to Leeds United.
By helping Leeds make it into large tournaments, like the Champions League...and helping Leeds United get rich (at that stage), he was able to make himself rich as well.
A CEO of a company gets millions of dollars per year as his salary...maybe 100 times more than the PM, who runs this country!
Why?
Because he has been able to make his company large profits, in turn, making the shareholders who have invested their money into the company, richer.
Through his intelligence, clever deal making, correct investment choices, etc....he has made the company rich, the shareholders rich, and therefore, has made himself rich.
Who should he share his wealth with? Who should the shareholders share their wealth with?
James Packer/Paris Hilton are both born into rich families, therefore they are automatically wealthy, and set for life.
Who should they share their wealth with, when they don't owe anyone (bur their parents) anything?
While it would be nice if the CEO of the company I work for handed-out all his earnings to the employees, it is HIS choice, and if he doesn't, then no one here is going to revolt.
Good on him!
You speak about Australian traditions and a "fair go".....but Australian traditions also mean the freedom to make one's choice for themselves, having the freedom to make money, buy houses, and do well for oneself.
There is nothing about handing away what you accumulate, because you should, or you have to....because of some "fair go" notion.
A "fair go" to me, is when people are treated fairly.....so if my workers want to earn what I earn, then they can come and do my job.
While they are at home cracking open a stubbie, I'm on the phone....or doing paperwork, or typing here on the computer. Their phone isn't going off at all hours, they aren't doing emails on a Saturday, or looking over a report on a Sunday.
I earn my money and other perks, and I earn every cent....and I ain't sharing with nobody! ;D
P.S:
So M'fufu can go and get stuffed, Curtis! :hihi
Mis-communication on my behalf - or - mis-interpretaion on yours - lets clarify
By share wealth I mean pay a fair and reasonable share of the revenue to those who helped get that revenue - that sharing can be
correct wages and conditions to the employees in their different capacities who work for the corporation
correct dividends to shareholders who helped put up the capital
correct and on-time payment to creditors who supplied goods &/or services to enable the profit to be obtained
after these any profit left over is the entrepreneurs.
Thats what I call distribution of wealth.
Taking your example of Harry Kewell - he, IMO, has shared his wealth - through making his club wealthier, through helping bookmakers turnover on betting, through helping stadium enterprises sell seats, through helping TV rights contracts to make profit and non-financially helping the club fans feel good. What he has made IMO, is really small compared to the wealth he has helped distribute. (If you wish to go down to the "nth" degree he has helped the employees of the the club, the bookies, the stadiums, the TV Stations all earn a wage).
Your example of the CEO of a company making millions is another of shared wealth - shareholders get a fair dividend, employees get a fair wage (& conditions) even the taxman gets his share.
What I fear you think I mean is that the entrepreneur or sports star or capitalist should also share his/her personal NET profits with others as well - I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THAT.
He/she has put his/her investment in and he/she deserves a fair return - and if that fair return makes him/her filthy rich then good luck to him/her. As long as they have been fair to all those along the way to gaining those riches.
And you and I know there are shysters out there who would rip off their own grandmother let alone employees, shareholders, creditors etc. just to turn a buck. Asian rag trade sweat houses in Australia are a very good example - Asian girls brought here on a promise of a better life but really brought here for prostitution and kept like animals is another - these are the extremes - there are others where I feel we do not give those who help derive the wealth a fair share - particularly in the Health Industry - nurses are paid very poorly, yet are the foundation of that industry. Teachers are disrespected when it comes to salaries yet their job have a huge impact on our country's future - teach the kids poorly today and we will have a poor country in a generation or 2. (Mind you some teaches do not earn any respect but all professions have there share of those).
To me the wealthy person who has derived wealth plus lifted the standard of life for others involved in deriving that wealth is the person I respect and try to learn from.
I hope this has clarified my side of the argument for you. Please ask further question if not......cheers RT
By share wealth I mean pay a fair and reasonable share of the revenue to those who helped get that revenue - that sharing can be
correct wages and conditions to the employees in their different capacities who work for the corporation
correct dividends to shareholders who helped put up the capital
correct and on-time payment to creditors who supplied goods &/or services to enable the profit to be obtained
after these any profit left over is the entrepreneurs.
Thats what I call distribution of wealth.
Taking your example of Harry Kewell - he, IMO, has shared his wealth - through making his club wealthier, through helping bookmakers turnover on betting, through helping stadium enterprises sell seats, through helping TV rights contracts to make profit and non-financially helping the club fans feel good. What he has made IMO, is really small compared to the wealth he has helped distribute. (If you wish to go down to the "nth" degree he has helped the employees of the the club, the bookies, the stadiums, the TV Stations all earn a wage).
Your example of the CEO of a company making millions is another of shared wealth - shareholders get a fair dividend, employees get a fair wage (& conditions) even the taxman gets his share.
What I fear you think I mean is that the entrepreneur or sports star or capitalist should also share his/her personal NET profits with others as well - I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THAT.
He/she has put his/her investment in and he/she deserves a fair return - and if that fair return makes him/her filthy rich then good luck to him/her. As long as they have been fair to all those along the way to gaining those riches.
And you and I know there are shysters out there who would rip off their own grandmother let alone employees, shareholders, creditors etc. just to turn a buck. Asian rag trade sweat houses in Australia are a very good example - Asian girls brought here on a promise of a better life but really brought here for prostitution and kept like animals is another - these are the extremes - there are others where I feel we do not give those who help derive the wealth a fair share - particularly in the Health Industry - nurses are paid very poorly, yet are the foundation of that industry. Teachers are disrespected when it comes to salaries yet their job have a huge impact on our country's future - teach the kids poorly today and we will have a poor country in a generation or 2. (Mind you some teaches do not earn any respect but all professions have there share of those).
To me the wealthy person who has derived wealth plus lifted the standard of life for others involved in deriving that wealth is the person I respect and try to learn from.
I hope this has clarified my side of the argument for you. Please ask further question if not......cheers RT
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1447wmv&ak=nul
I'm speechless.
PS - use your "pause" button to read the translation.
I'm speechless.
PS - use your "pause" button to read the translation.
RemoteTiger said:
Remote,
No worries...at least that sounds more reasonable than some of the earlier arguments I have read from other posters.
However, what do you class "fair and reasonable"?
Also...when you talk about correct wages and conditions, and about what nurses get paid, etc.....if they do not get paid what they are entitled to, then it is against the law.
Asian sweathouses and the like....they are also, against the law.
So, we already have laws to protect these people, and it has nothing to do with taxing rich people more, as such.
poppa x said:
Poppa,
I think you're being ignorant and misunderstanding again, like me.....*tut tut*
:hihi
Liverpool said:
Fair and reasonable is arguably an agreement between the Corporation and the working group - which should be allowed to have the ability to negotiate as a body (read union) if they so desire - it should also have a national watchdog to pronounce such agreements as fair and reasonable.
Fair and reasonable to shareholders is policed by the ASX therefore all appears to be above board.
Fair and reasonable to creditors is both market driven and driven by the commercial laws of the land.
With reference to your nurse not being paid what they should be is against the law is probably where you and I will differ.
My firm opinion is that the law in this instance is an ass - and the rates of pay for such a critical profession are set in favour of the employer (usually the Government in our Public Health System). Hence the law is not being broken however IMO the rate has been set far too low and that is why we are losing nurses from the profession at an enormous rate.
Same could be said for teachers.
This all comes back to a user pays system but if we are to be "fair" to all Australians we should have the ability where all have access to Health Providers and access to an equal standard of education.
Thus if to maintain these principles and pay the Public Hospital nurses and Public Schools teachers more we need to raise more taxes to do so - the ones that can afford the those taxes more are the better off in our society.
My brother a self made millionaire often said that he is only too happy to pay his share of taxes that go to the public education system even though he and his wife could not have children - when I asked why? He replied I am getting a better standard of high school leaver and University graduate for my business - this helps my productivity which in turn helps my bottom line.
I fear you and I may disagree on my last 2 points - but isn't it wonderful that we have the right to disagree and a say through our vote in this Australian Democracy.
.....cheers RT
