Wealth

[Liverpool]

I didn't say it was Livers. I only objected to your inference that every person that needs help via donations is a pathetic dole bludger.

Whether they are genuine or not is inconsequential if it isn't the responsibilty of someone on the basis that they have accrued wealth in their time.

 

[Disco08]

Of course it's "consequential". There are people out there who genuinely need help through no fault of their own whatsoever. If you want to claim to have any sense of community in your society eventually these people need that help from somewhere.

 

[Liverpool]

Of course it's "consequential". There are people out there who genuinely need help through no fault of their own whatsoever. If you want to claim to have any sense of community in your society eventually these people need that help from somewhere.

But that is the question......do you believe it should remain the freedom of choice of people, regardless of their personal wealth to contribute or donate if they feel like it?
or do you think there should be a threshold that once you have "x amount of $$$" in your bank then you have to hand it over?

Whether the people who need the money are genuine or not isn't the question.

 

[Disco08]

I don't think forcing people to hand over a percentage of their wealth would necessarily be all that bad. I'd use a sliding scale - 1% for the 90% of 'ordinary' Aussies and up to 10% for the rich buggers depending on just how rich they are. We all benefit from the society we live in so giving back to it as a mandatory action is justifiable IMO.

So you do actually accept there are people out there that genuinely need help Livers?

 

[Liverpool]

So you do actually accept there are people out there that genuinely need help Livers?

I've never said ALL welfare recipients were not genuine.....but...

I don't think forcing people to hand over a percentage of their wealth would necessarily be all that bad. I'd use a sliding scale - 1% for the 90% of 'ordinary' Aussies and up to 10% for the rich buggers depending on just how rich they are. We all benefit from the society we live in so giving back to it as a mandatory action is justifiable IMO.

....with this type of "distribution", you are also rewarding the non-genuine people x TWO.

Once by the normal taxes that we pay which already has thresholds.....and then again by punishing the achievers of this world to pay for the 'others'.

What you are showing is simply a stereotype of what this country gets blamed for.....bringing down the tall poppy while rewarding the underdog (in this case, the underdog who is a reject or failure of life, whether by their own hand or not).

You speak about us all benefiting from the society we live in....but what would that society be like if people's individual talents aren't being encouraged because they know that the more successful they are, the more they will be punished?
Individuals with talent that aren't having their skills encouraged for fear of being punished will simply leave Australia altogether.....so where does that leave your society then?

Also.....how many people who are now success stories but came from a difficult or broken background would be successful at all if they hadn't had that character-building life-changing moment, yet instead received handouts on a silver platter.
In footy terms....its like rookie-listed players finally making it to the big time and because they know how hard it was to make it, try that extra bit harder to be successful whereas top-10 draft picks with natural talent sometimes don't make it at all.

The genuine people out there who need help will simply see the hand-outs they receive as a temporary help until they get over the hurdle of a difficult time in their life.
I feel Government welfare which we already pay taxes towards as well as the various charities out there that people can CHOOSE to donate to enough.
Punishing the successful to subsidise others may encourage temporary help to becoming permanent help....which not only lessens the life of the recipient but lessens the drive for people to be successful to begin with.
Its a lose/lose situation....and wrong.

 

[Disco08]

No it's not. We already have the exact same system. It would simply be a small extension of that.

You speak about us all benefiting from the society we live in....but what would that society be like if people's individual talents aren't being encouraged because they know that the more successful they are, the more they will be punished?
Individuals with talent that aren't having their skills encouraged for fear of being punished will simply leave Australia altogether.....so where does that leave your society then?

Melodramatic rubbish. People are already taxed far more than the contribution I mentioned. Where's mass exodus and breakdown of society?

Also.....how many people who are now success stories but came from a difficult or broken background would be successful at all if they hadn't had that character-building life-changing moment, yet instead received handouts on a silver platter.

Very few I'd imagine. Money isn't the be all and end all for most people, but it can be if someone is completely without. I'd say the number of people who never got to have their life changing moment because their circumstances defeated them would be far higher.

I've never said ALL welfare recipients were not genuine.....but...

No, but you always base your arguments as if this is the case. It seems to me you'd rather let genuine people suffer in case a few dole bludgers get something for nothing than actually concentrate on helping those that truly need it.

 

[dukeos]

Hmmm....

The other point to make is that this is net wealth - that is all the wealth the individuals have tied up in assets and companies. So it's not personal wealth in most cases. The money is tied up in corporations that are working, doing business, employing thousands of people.

If we were to take this money away, what happens to those corporations? What happens to all the people employed by those corporations? What happens to the economies that depend on those corporations?

Now I think obscene personal wealth is not too flash either but this is too simplistic a way to look at the problem IMO.

Good point.

Livers, whats the point of having more than you can use, when others have nothing. Im not talking about "dole bludgers", Im talking about peoples all over

the world who, through matters completely out of their control, have no food, water or housing. I reckon most billionaires like the sum of their bank accounts

to compensate for the size of their undie buldge.

 

[Play Centre]

Oooh, I hadn't thought of that last point! I don't have much money at all so what does that say about, er, y'know, my nether regions?

 

[Liverpool]

No it's not. We already have the exact same system. It would simply be a small extension of that.

I don't think we need an extension of it at all. Full stop.

Melodramatic rubbish. People are already taxed far more than the contribution I mentioned. Where's mass exodus and breakdown of society?

Aren't you advocating the continuation of the tax system...PLUS an introduction of a threshold where another percentage of that person's wealth gets distributed?
And don't dismiss it as 'melodramatic' because if Australia introduced such a scheme here, I guarantee you that the people you are targeting have enough money to move overseas, become citizens elsewhere, where they do not have to succumb to your socialist ideals.
Whose loss will that be then as our society gets closer to that of a third world country?

Very few I'd imagine. Money isn't the be all and end all for most people, but it can be if someone is completely without. I'd say the number of people who never got to have their life changing moment because their circumstances defeated them would be far higher.

Not at all.
You look at a John Ilhan, Richard Branson, Lindsay Fox, or Frank Lowy, etc.....all started their businesses from extremely small beginnings and from doing it the hard way.
For example...Lindsay Fox started his business with 1 truck....Branson started his business by selling records from the boot of his car.
This 'experience' enabled them to work it out for themselves and to do the hard yards until eventually all of them became top businessmen in their own right.
Now you are advocating these people who have worked their butts off to subsidise the people out there who either don't want to do anything the hard way or don't know how to.

Also....imagine if John/Richard/Lindsay/Frank all received welfare and then on top of that, another bonus payment from the "punishing the successful tax" you are advocating....maybe, just maybe....things may have been a little more confortable and Richard may not have bothered selling his records from his car boot.....and maybe Lindsay wouldn't have had the desire to buy a truck and start his own business.

I think there is a fine line between helping the unfortunate enough so they survive and going overboard so they have no desire to be removed from their comfortable welfare-grabbing existence.

No, but you always base your arguments as if this is the case. It seems to me you'd rather let genuine people suffer in case a few dole bludgers get something for nothing than actually concentrate on helping those that truly need it.

Life is full of genuine people suffering because of a minority, Disco.
One bloke decides to take a bomb made out of liquid onto a plane....and now people like me can't take a bottle of Bundy in our hand-luggage anymore.
A handful of yobbos cause trouble at the footy/cricket....so booze is banned unless you pay $6 for a plastic cup of it.
A few customers give a company a dishonoured cheque and next thing you know that business has a "no cheques" policy.
A handful of employees rip the system off with their times and now a company have installed finger-sensoring time-clock devices that determine the hours all wage-earning employees work.
Thats life, Disco.

 

[Play Centre]

Life is full of genuine people suffering because of a minority, Disco.
One bloke decides to take a bomb made out of liquid onto a plane....and now people like me can't take a bottle of Bundy in our hand-luggage anymore.
A handful of yobbos cause trouble at the footy/cricket....so booze is banned unless you pay $6 for a plastic cup of it.
A few customers give a company a dishonoured cheque and next thing you know that business has a "no cheques" policy.
A handful of employees rip the system off with their times and now a company have installed finger-sensoring time-clock devices that determine the hours all wage-earning employees work.
Thats life, Disco.

Your definition of suffering according to these examples is rather strange, Liverpool.

 

[Liverpool]

Livers, whats the point of having more than you can use, when others have nothing. Im not talking about "dole bludgers", Im talking about peoples all over
the world who, through matters completely out of their control, have no food, water or housing. I reckon most billionaires like the sum of their bank accounts
to compensate for the size of their undie buldge.

So you are worse than Disco even?
You don't want to punish the rich to help welfare recipients....you want to go one step further and use the money that a few people have been able to accrue to disperse amongst everyone?

You might like this read :

Jokings aside.....this link you may find interesting...its called "Limited Capitalism":

http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about20056.html

 

[Liverpool]

Your definition of suffering according to these examples is rather strange, Liverpool.

You don't agree the examples I have given are where genuine people have been punished due to a minority of people breaking the system?

 

[Play Centre]

You don't agree the examples I have given are where genuine people have been punished due to a minority of people breaking the system?

Actually, no I don't.

 

[Liverpool]

Actually, no I don't.

And how do you come to that conclusion?

 

[Disco08]

I don't think we need an extension of it at all. Full stop.

You think the amount of suffering is just right as it is?

Aren't you advocating the continuation of the tax system...PLUS an introduction of a threshold where another percentage of that person's wealth gets distributed?

Where did I say that?

And don't dismiss it as 'melodramatic' because if Australia introduced such a scheme here, I guarantee you that the people you are targeting have enough money to move overseas, become citizens elsewhere, where they do not have to succumb to your socialist ideals.

They're succumbing to these socialist ideals already. It's called taxes. I don't see a big gang of millionaires marching on Parliament to demand the abolishment of government welfare agencies, do you?

You look at a John Ilhan, Richard Branson, Lindsay Fox, or Frank Lowy, etc.....all started their businesses from extremely small beginnings and from doing it the hard way.
For example...Lindsay Fox started his business with 1 truck....Branson started his business by selling records from the boot of his car.
This 'experience' enabled them to work it out for themselves and to do the hard yards until eventually all of them became top businessmen in their own right.

So Fox owned a truck and Branson owned a car? These are not the people we're talking about. You do realise that poverty extends further than this don't you?

Now you are advocating these people who have worked their butts off to subsidise the people out there who either don't want to do anything the hard way or don't know how to.

There you go again, suggesting that everyone that needs help is actually lazy or stupid.

FWIW, that's not what I'm advocating at all.

I think there is a fine line between helping the unfortunate enough so they survive and going overboard so they have no desire to be removed from their comfortable welfare-grabbing existence.

Maybe there is. Like I said already I guess it comes down to which way you look at it. Would you rather help people that really need it and risk letting some others rort welfare systems or would you prefer to take no risk and leave those that need help to fight for themselves?

Life is full of genuine people suffering because of a minority, Disco.
One bloke decides to take a bomb made out of liquid onto a plane....and now people like me can't take a bottle of Bundy in our hand-luggage anymore.
A handful of yobbos cause trouble at the footy/cricket....so booze is banned unless you pay $6 for a plastic cup of it.
A few customers give a company a dishonoured cheque and next thing you know that business has a "no cheques" policy.
A handful of employees rip the system off with their times and now a company have installed finger-sensoring time-clock devices that determine the hours all wage-earning employees work.
Thats life, Disco.

LMAO. These are your definitions of 'suffering'? :cutelaugh

 

[Liverpool]

You think the amount of suffering is just right as it is?

Yes.
Take the fire victims at Kinglake.....they have received donations from various charities set up that people could CHOOSE to donate to.
They are rebuilding their lives, which will take time, but they are doing it without the Government intervening with laws dictating that rich people hand over their money that has gone over a particulat threshold.
The fire victims of Ash Wednesday moved on....they went from losing everything to rebuilding their homes and lives also without the bonus of rich people subsidising them and others.

Where did I say that?

Thats why I asked the question:
"Aren't you advocating the continuation of the tax system...PLUS an introduction of a threshold where another percentage of that person's wealth gets distributed?"

So exactly what are you advocating...wiping the current tax system and just having a "rich punishment tax" instead? or??

They're succumbing to these socialist ideals already. It's called taxes. I don't see a big gang of millionaires marching on Parliament to demand the abolishment of government welfare agencies, do you?

No, because they probably think the same as me, that the current status quo is about right.
It would be interesting to see if their mindset would change if we used Dukeos' idea that once you reach a specific sum of personal wealth, then that goes and gets distributed among the masses.

So Fox owned a truck and Branson owned a car? These are not the people we're talking about. You do realise that poverty extends further than this don't you?

I used this as an example of how people from small beginnings and against the odds can succeed without people propping them up.
The same for people in poverty.....the welfare they receive now is enough to give them the chance to move forward if they so desire.

There you go again, suggesting that everyone that needs help is actually lazy or stupid.

People on long-term unemployment, for example (unless they have some type of medical reason) are either lazy or stupid. Period.
No excuses, Disco. (and I would lean for the "lazy" scenario 9 times out of 10)

Maybe there is. Like I said already I guess it comes down to which way you look at it. Would you rather help people that really need it and risk letting some others rort welfare systems or would you prefer to take no risk and leave those that need help to fight for themselves?

I prefer to leave it the way it is as the genuine recipients of welfare will always have the desire to get off welfare and get into the workforce or improve their status is life.
They will do this even more so if the welfare they receive is just enough to cover the majority of their living expenses without going overboard.

For the people rorting the system and sitting on unemployment for years.....let them stay on the bare minimum.
By distributing rich people's money and giving these people more just means more disposable income for drugs, junk food, tattoos, and cigarettes.
Their ambitions in life will remain the same as that is the mentality of the bum.....its just that their bumming lifestyle will be more comfortable than what it is now.

LMAO. These are your definitions of 'suffering'? :cutelaugh

They were simply examples of where the majority of people have been punished due to a minority breaking the system.
You wanted to use the reasoning that why should genuine people suffer due to the the bludgers.....my examples were simply letting you know that genuine people suffer inconvenience or are punished every day due to a minority.
Why should welfare be any different?

 

[tigersnake]

Thing is Liverpool, you can harp on all you want on a footy internet forum, but the inescapeable truth of the reality of the GFC, (not the Geelong Football Club), is that too many people have been earning far too much for doing far too little for far too long.

The real consequences of what has actually happened, as well as the overwhelming majority of financial, political and economic analysis points to people in charge of the cookie jar earning too much and stuffing the system. Its the people earning too much, and yes, they were earning too much, that have had huge negative consequences, not the odd couch dwelling dole recipient. To argue otherwise is ludicrous, But as usual, I'm sure you'll have a go anyway.

 

[Disco08]

Yes.
Take the fire victims at Kinglake.....they have received donations from various charities set up that people could CHOOSE to donate to.
They are rebuilding their lives, which will take time, but they are doing it without the Government intervening with laws dictating that rich people hand over their money that has gone over a particulat threshold.
The fire victims of Ash Wednesday moved on....they went from losing everything to rebuilding their homes and lives also without the bonus of rich people subsidising them and others.

95% of these victims had insurance. Pathetic example Livers.

Let me put it another, more specific way: Of the 30 OECD countries, Australia has the 14th highest rate of child poverty. Do you think this is acceptable and should be left as it is?

Thats why I asked the question:
"Aren't you advocating the continuation of the tax system...PLUS an introduction of a threshold where another percentage of that person's wealth gets distributed?"

So exactly what are you advocating...wiping the current tax system and just having a "rich punishment tax" instead? or??

Ugh. Read my posts again. It's not hard to understand.

No, because they probably think the same as me, that the current status quo is about right.

But you think being forced to give an extra 1% of their income to help those in need would see them all leave the country en masse? Remember tax rates are 49 cents in the dollar for the semi rich.

I used this as an example of how people from small beginnings and against the odds can succeed without people propping them up.
The same for people in poverty.....the welfare they receive now is enough to give them the chance to move forward if they so desire.

How do you know that? Ever lived in poverty and tried to survive on welfare?

People on long-term unemployment, for example (unless they have some type of medical reason) are either lazy or stupid. Period.
No excuses, Disco. (and I would lean for the "lazy" scenario 9 times out of 10)

Some of them are, no doubt. How you can possibly know this about all of the millions of unemployed Australians is beyond me. Your arrogance knows no bounds it seems.

I prefer to leave it the way it is as the genuine recipients of welfare will always have the desire to get off welfare and get into the workforce or improve their status is life.

Speaking from experience again are you?

You honestly don't think poverty cycle exists do you? IYO there is no situation you can't get out of if you just want it badly enough?

For the people rorting the system and sitting on unemployment for years.....let them stay on the bare minimum.
By distributing rich people's money and giving these people more just means more disposable income for drugs, junk food, tattoos, and cigarettes.
Their ambitions in life will remain the same as that is the mentality of the bum.....its just that their bumming lifestyle will be more comfortable than what it is now.

People that have disposable income for these things are not the ones that really need help. You do realise that there are many people in far worse situations than bludging on the dole don't you?

They were simply examples of where the majority of people have been punished due to a minority breaking the system.
You wanted to use the reasoning that why should genuine people suffer due to the the bludgers.....my examples were simply letting you know that genuine people suffer inconvenience or are punished every day due to a minority.
Why should welfare be any different?

Your examples were moronic and insulting. You're comparing the suffering someone living in extreme poverty goes through to someone who can't take a bottle of Bundy in their hand language. Absolutely ridiculous, even for you.

 

[Liverpool]

Let me put it another, more specific way: Of the 30 OECD countries, Australia has the 14th highest rate of child poverty. Do you think this is acceptable and should be left as it is?

Its not acceptable but punishing the rich to give to them isn't the answer.
Why are children in poverty?
Mainly due to ill-disciplined and poor parenting.....so do you really want more money going to people like that?
Put it this way....where I work I drive past a Centrelink and a couple of fast-food outlets and a bottle shop.
It isn't uncommon for me to see on specific days a mother drinking a can of Jim Beam at lunchtime while the kid in the stroller is munching on fried chicken and chips.
More money to these people isn't going to change their attitude to life.....all it does is give them more disposable income to spend on *smile*.

How do you know that? Ever lived in poverty and tried to survive on welfare?

Of course its enough to pay for food and bills...thats all they need and what welfare is for.
If it isn't enough then there is the incentive to get out and get a job!
If the welfare and/or 'punishing the rich tax' is covering the bills easily then there is no incentive for people to strive to get into the workforce or improve their lifestyle.
You don't want welfare being comfortable...you want to make it 'difficult' somewhat to try and persuade people off it altogether.

Some of them are, no doubt. How you can possibly know this about all of the millions of unemployed Australians is beyond me. Your arrogance knows no bounds it seems.
You honestly don't think poverty cycle exists do you? IYO there is no situation you can't get out of if you just want it badly enough?

If people want to improve their lot in life Disco....they will.
Put it this way....if people on leaky boats can arrive here and without a "rich punishment tax" take over half of Richmond or Footscray with cafes, restaurants, supermarkets, chemists, fruit and vege shops, etc and become successful business people.....then why can't Australians who are 'poverty'???

I would have thought people coming here from another country, not knowing the language, and wearing only the clothes on their back....if they can get out of it, then there is no excuse for anyone else.
Like I stated earlier...Branson started selling records from a boot of a car....Fox bought some old truck...Ilhan worked for Strathfield car radio and started a shop across the road on his own.
All you are doing is making excuses.

You do realise that there are many people in far worse situations than bludging on the dole don't you?
Your examples were moronic and insulting. You're comparing the suffering someone living in extreme poverty goes through to someone who can't take a bottle of Bundy in their hand language. Absolutely ridiculous, even for you.

Disco....with the numerous types of welfare....the infinite number of charities...the number of courses and schoolings set up for people who aren't well off....there is no reason for people to be in "extreme poverty".
You like to make dramtic statements about how bad people are going in this country....your numerous wailings about Aborigines a perfect example on that other thread...and it seems you are continuing on this thread with this pitiful attempt to try and justify people staying home all day or sitting in Swanston Street doing nothing but hassling people for money.

People who don't have a job get the dole....people who are too old get a pension...people who can't work because they have a medical condition get another type of pension.
There are no excuses.
If they go and blow this money on drugs or booze and then due to their poor decisions, have no choice but to sleep on the street, then that isn't "extreme poverty"...thats simply a person who is stupid.
And you want to give rich people's money to people like this?

Then you have the ways out....the simple one for people who are physically fit and are deemed (using your words now) in 'extreme poverty' can always join the army.
Food and lodgings provided as well as learning a career...if they so want to.

There are courses at TAFEs geared for low-income people.....if they so want to.

No excuses Disco for people not to improve themselves and their life......if they so want to.

 

[Disco08]

Its not acceptable but punishing the rich to give to them isn't the answer.

What is the answer then?

Of course its enough to pay for food and bills...thats all they need and what welfare is for.
If it isn't enough then there is the incentive to get out and get a job!
If the welfare and/or 'punishing the rich tax' is covering the bills easily then there is no incentive for people to strive to get into the workforce or improve their lifestyle.
You don't want welfare being comfortable...you want to make it 'difficult' somewhat to try and persuade people off it altogether.

Unless you actually know the circumstances some people endure (the people we're talking about) you're preaching from ignorance yet again. You keep wanting to bring this back to the dole bludger who needs to get off his arse and do something for himself but this is not the people who need help.

If people want to improve their lot in life Disco....they will.
Put it this way....if people on leaky boats can arrive here and without a "rich punishment tax" take over half of Richmond or Footscray with cafes, restaurants, supermarkets, chemists, fruit and vege shops, etc and become successful business people.....then why can't Australians who are 'poverty'

I know it's hard for you to comprehend. Maybe try starting with the basic principles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty

Disco....with the numerous types of welfare....the infinite number of charities...the number of courses and schoolings set up for people who aren't well off....there is no reason for people to be in "extreme poverty".

Another ridiculous comment.

You like to make dramtic statements about how bad people are going in this country....your numerous wailings about Aborigines a perfect example on that other thread...and it seems you are continuing on this thread with this pitiful attempt to try and justify people staying home all day or sitting in Swanston Street doing nothing but hassling people for money.

Is that right? Can you justify this statement with quotes?

FWIW, All I did was pull you up on your usual mistake. I wish I hadn't bothered now because discussions with you always turn into a meaningless waste of time.

No excuses Disco for people not to improve themselves and their life......if they so want to.

Again Livers, unless you're talking from experience you have no idea and all your doing is proving your small minded arrogance.