PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

bosnich71 17th Mar 2015 04:13

I would have loved to 'minimise' my taxes but unfortunately they were annexed before I got the chance, just like the rest of the PAYE plebs.

gupta 17th Mar 2015 05:27

BOS

Go to a reputable accountant & see if there are any avenues, now or for future action.

& Pinky

I think the full exchange kept on going:

"because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra"

Dark Knight 17th Mar 2015 05:53

Kerry Packer: "Of course I am minimising my tax. And if anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax, they want their heads read, because as a government, I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra!"

PinkusDickus 17th Mar 2015 06:24


You may have a point there, Pinkus. You might remember a chap called Kerry Packer. He boasted on more than one occasion that he paid no tax.
You've lost me Stanwell. My point was whether taxpayers should have more say in who gets elected to govern, as opposed to those who are nothing but leeches on the public purse.

Seeing though you've raised Kerry Packer, he did make things happen, and while it was alway with a benefit for himself in mind, many others were dragged along in his slipstream. There is no question he paid taxes, minimised always, but paid.

I couldn't help but quietly admire him for taking government to task when he did. You're happy to admonish Packer for his unwillingness to pay tax - will you admonish the million or so Australians who've made "lifestyle choices" and unwilling to make any meaningful contribution to the society that supports them?


It's the mugs on PAYE that are carrying the unfair share of the burden
The only reason why they can be called "mugs", is because they willingly support these leeches who've made non-contributing "lifestyle choices". I minimise my tax (I'm not stupid either), but I know in the last FY I've paid enough taxes to keep at least 5 or 6 SW Sydney families safe at home from any form of work.

rh200 17th Mar 2015 06:35


I can remember his now somewhat famous quote about minimising his tax... 'and if you don't minimise your tax then you need your head read...
Yep every year millions of taxpayer plebes do their best to minimize their tax, either by themselves or though accountants. Why do we criticize some one who is more successful at it than us.

I ballsed up the other year an had to pay more:{.

Pinky the pilot 17th Mar 2015 07:01

gupta & Dark Knight; Thank you, Gentlemen! :ok:

alisoncc 17th Mar 2015 07:28

Personally don't see any difference between welfare dependancy and credit dependancy. Those at the bottom of the food chain tend to be welfare dependant and those much higher up are borrowing money like it's going out of fashion with the intention of increasing their assets without having to work for them. Neither adds any value to society.

bosnich71 17th Mar 2015 08:03

I don't 'willingly' support leeches.

david1300 17th Mar 2015 08:19


Originally Posted by alisoncc (Post 8904828)
Personally don't see any difference between welfare dependancy and credit dependancy. Those at the bottom of the food chain tend to be welfare dependant and those much higher up are borrowing money like it's going out of fashion with the intention of increasing their assets without having to work for them. Neither adds any value to society.

Now there's some (lack of) logic I don't understand. Those who borrow money pay interest on the borrowings, and are required to repay whatever they borrow. Those on welfare do neither - they just hold their hands out and take.

MTOW 17th Mar 2015 08:33

If you doubt that there is a class of Australians out there who will never work one day in their lives - and to be fair, are quite possibly incapable of doing so thanks to their being third generation welfare recipients - catch a train through Campbelltown after 11am on any work (!) day. Not before 11 am, because they won't be out of bed until then. It's instructional, and not in a good way. You will never see a thicker array of tatts outside a bikie convention.

alisoncc 17th Mar 2015 09:06


Now there's some (lack of) logic I don't understand.
See previous postings relating to ridiculously low interest rates.

Pinky the pilot 17th Mar 2015 09:24

Er Alison; But the initial loan still must be repaid, yes?

Maybe at a ridiculously low interest rate; but still repaid.

So where does the money to repay the loan/s come from?:confused:

Stanwell 17th Mar 2015 12:07

Pinky,
Re KP, yes sorry, he carefully used the word 'minimize'.

PinkusDickus 17th Mar 2015 23:15


Personally don't see any difference between welfare dependancy and credit dependancy.
Welfare dependents have no obligation to repay, borrowers have an obligation and a liability to repay credit with interest, and can be sued (and made bankrupt).


Those at the bottom of the food chain tend to be welfare dependant
Correct. More than likely welfare dependants or dependent on welfare.


and those much higher up are borrowing money like it's going out of fashion with the intention of increasing their assets without having to work for them.
When was the last time your medication was adjusted? When you borrow to increase your asset base you have to pay interest, and if interest rates are low then inflation is generally low, so the value of the asset will not increase unless there is some other upward demand pressure. A borrower takes risk and there is has to be a reward (why else take a risk), but there is also the chance for any investment to turn sour, that will result in margin calls, repossession and bankruptcy, which rapidly deliver you to the bottom of the food chain. Much the same as "Snakes and Ladders".....


Neither adds any value to society.
Welfare dependency subtracts from society and is at the moment an unlimited liability to the taxpayer.

Credit dependency is self limiting and not a burden on the taxpayer, unless you lose the lot...

Those who borrow (lets say a rental property) add value to their own account because they increase their wealth, add value to society because they provide a service to others who cannot afford a house, and provide work because somebody built the house in the first place.

rh200 17th Mar 2015 23:41


and those much higher up are borrowing money like it's going out of fashion with the intention of increasing their assets without having to work for them.
Now theres a very narrow view, or complete misunderstanding of the system, or should I say, the hand that feeds you.

MTOW 17th Mar 2015 23:49

Are we being a tad simplistic labelling the welfare-dependants in Australian society as the bottom of the food chain? Too many people who would (quite correctly) never consider themselves to be anywhere near the bottom of the food/social chain have become far too dependant on welfare in some of its far too many forms.

Child care is a case in point, but that's just one of them.

How many retirees do you know who drive a very nice car and live in a multi million dollar primary residence, but because they've been a bit creative in how they've invested their not inconsiderable assets, receive a full (or more often part) old age pension? I have one in my close family and I think it's plain wrong. He's organised his life to get a nominal pension so that he'll be entitled to all the pensioner rebates in council rates car rego etc. It's not a lot he gets each fortnight, but I know he's just one of many who could - and should - be totally independent of government in retirement and all those small payouts add up in to a considerable sum, a sum that should be going to people who need it.

Surely to God it would make more sense for the government to offer rebates on rates etc to people who are NOT on any government handouts? Or maybe we just need to drop all the handouts so that there's no advantage in people taking out the pension?

If people are genuinely 'asset rich/cash poor', i.e., a retired couple or a widow who live/lives in the family home which has become very valuable thanks to our ridiculous real estate prices, I think it would make enormous sense for the government to bring in a system offering that couple or widow with a primary residence with a value over a certain figure* a choice:

(a) either stay independent of the government by taking out a reverse mortgage or similar and live a comfortable life on the money the bank will pay you in return for their gaining an interest in your property after you die or are forced to leave it, or

(b) take out a government pension on the understanding that after your death, your estate will have to repay whatever the government has paid you in the pension.

What we have currently is a system where the taxpayer subsidizes the next generation who inherit these multi million dollar properties.

I think the Howard government should take much of the blame for the spread of welfare expectancy into the middle classes.


* that 'certain figure', where the government says 'your primary residence is above the average' would probably have to vary with post code. For instance, a 1.8 million dollar primary residence in Dubbo or Broken Hill is a very different kettle of fish to a 1.8 million dollar primary residence in South Yarra or Sydney's Eastern Suburbs.

bosnich71 17th Mar 2015 23:58

MTOW ..." the government has paid you in pension".... I think the taxpayer pays pensions and in most cases the pensioner has contributed to that pension via taxation.

alisoncc 18th Mar 2015 00:23


borrowers have an obligation and a liability to repay credit with interest, and can be sued (and made bankrupt).
Should the property bubble burst, as surely it will, what percentage of the population aged between 20 and 40 would be declared bankrupt ? Thinks of all the idiots who have paid multi-millions of dollars for a house in some scruffy inner Sydney suburb. Throw in a minor recession or another GFC and woops.

It's all very well stating that borrowers have an obligation to repay loans, but how many would anticipate repaying mortgages just taken out if unemployed or the bank forecloses as the property is now worth half of that owing? When I used to analyse company balance sheets and P & L's a regular phrase used related to a company being "over extended", where a minor downturn would lead to insolvency. What percentage of the population could now be considered to be "over extended". Far too many I suspect.

I wrote previously of "people buying things they don't need with money they don't have" egged on by various governments, but where will the economy be if the credit dries up, and everyone stops spending?

.

david1300 18th Mar 2015 02:15


Originally Posted by alisoncc (Post 8905975)
Should the property bubble burst, as surely it will, what percentage of the population aged between 20 and 40 would be declared bankrupt ? Thinks of all the idiots who have paid multi-millions of dollars for a house in some scruffy inner Sydney suburb. Throw in a minor recession or another GFC and woops.

If this happened (as I believe it surely won't), they will just become welfare dependent BUT as of now they are doing whatever they believe is best to ensure they become financially independent, and avoid being welfare dependent. I cannot see how this is a bad thing.


Originally Posted by alisoncc (Post 8905975)
It's all very well stating that borrowers have an obligation to repay loans, but how many would anticipate repaying mortgages just taken out if unemployed or the bank forecloses as the property is now worth half of that owing? When I used to analyse company balance sheets and P & L's a regular phrase used related to a company being "over extended", where a minor downturn would lead to insolvency. What percentage of the population could now be considered to be "over extended". Far too many I suspect...

If made unemployed a couple of things happen:
1 - If they are heavily geared the lender would have ensured that there is mortgage insurance, which will pay the mortgage until the property is sold and the mortgage is repaid. (As an aside, they may then become welfare dependent, but thank goodness that right now they are contributing by paying tax)
2 - If they are not so heavily geared, they have time to sell the property and repay the mortgage. (Again, they may then become welfare dependent, but thank goodness that right now they are contributing by paying tax)
3 - When ever, yes, EVER, has property in Australia reduced to half it's value? Even in the recent GFC and the previous 'recession we had to have' this didn't happen. If you or anyone else wants to live your life by these ridiculous scare-story assumptions don't expect the rest of us to follow or agree.


Originally Posted by alisoncc (Post 8905975)
...I wrote previously of "people buying things they don't need with money they don't have" egged on by various governments, but where will the economy be if the credit dries up, and everyone stops spending? ...

No worse off than if everyone stopped spending now, I would guess. However, everyone will not EVER (yes, that word again) stop spending. In hard financial times spending on luxuries (and we all have our own version of what constitutes a luxury) will decrease, but spending on necessities continues. And, of course, if we all get another $900 cash handout we can all upgrade our necessities - large flat panel TV's that will doubtlessly help the Chinese through their economic slowdown.

Fubaar 18th Mar 2015 21:16

I saw this on another web site this morning.


THE Andrews Government has begun drafting legislation that could see it avoid paying compensation for scrapping the East West link.

In a move that will increase the heat on negotiations between consortium East West Connect and the government, Special Minister of State Gavin Jennings told parliament that staff in the Department of Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance had been instructed to start considering the Bill.

Talks over the East West Link have reached a stalemate, with both sides arguing over hundreds of millions of dollars in potential compensation after the government walked away from the $6.8 billion project.

Treasurer Tim Pallas confirmed Labor had given the order but said negotiations with the consortium were ongoing.

“As we’ve said consistently, we have never ruled out legislating to protect Victorian taxpayers from the financially disastrous and irresponsible East West link,’’ Mr Pallas said.

“However we will always unashamedly put Victorians first unlike the former Liberal Government who put Victorians last with their treacherous side letter.
If it's true, and the Vic. Labor government reneges on paying compensation to the companies which were to build the East West Link, who, apart from the lawyers, will win in the long run?

I know the lawyers will be loving this, for it will keep a truck load of them in business (at how many thousands of $$$ a day?) representing both sides for a decade or more. But surely any "savings" in not paying the compensation will be lost as any company going in to a contract with any Australian government organisation in the future, to prevent a repeat of this current carry-on, will insist on terms so watertight that it will end up costing more.

Oh, but I forgot... the Labor Pardy is involved. Problems, like debts, that can be kicked off into the future for someone else to deal with don't really matter, do they?


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:43.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.